KeralaBrethren.net
New User? Register Today!
Registered Users, LOGIN
What we believe (Eng) What we believe (Mal) About Us Contact Us
Forums Home General Forum Youth Forum Sisters Forum Archives (2005-2007) Archives (2001-2004)
Listing of Brides Listing of Grooms
Assemblies in Kerala Evangelists in India Instituitions in India
Christian Albums Christian Songs
Audio Sermons Bible Wallpapers Brethren Links KB History (Eng) KB History (Mal)

K E R A L A  B R E T H R E N
General Forum

Forums Home ::
This Message Forum is to discuss spiritual topics only. Please avoid personal or assembly matters.
Let us use this facility for our spiritual enrichment and for bringing glory to our Lord almighty.
Webmasters reserve the right to delete any topic or posting partly or completely from this forum.
View Topics :: :: Post new topic


Keralabrethren.net: General Forum: Breaking of the bread - Part 2

Post Reply
Go to bottom of the page

# 08064 :  Breaking of the bread - Part 2

1 Corinthians 11: 24 - 27

And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

1 John 4:20

If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The topic of discussion is: What do people today deem as ‘unworthily’?

In many assemblies, brethren across the world gather to together to remember the Lord, his sufferings and his great sacrifice. We are supposed to demonstrate the eternal love of God to everyone. But in many instances, people in the church break bread even though they themselves have issues with one another. My question here is:

  1. Why is this deemed acceptable? And how does one who has the spirit of God allow this?
  2. What is the role of the church here? If the church is corruptible, what should one ideally in this circumstance do?
  3. Should the church, which is aware of such situations even allow the breaking of the bread?

Some points before we discuss so that is edifying and a learning. They are listed below:

  1. You can participate in anonymity. Even if you don’t sign off also there is no problem. Nobody is a master here nor do you need submit your birth certificate. You can participate freely.
  2. If your participation means answers which pertains to read the scripture, that is like a teacher who tells a child who enters his/her class telling him/her to read the textbook, all the answers are there. This is not a class room, this is not a study, this is forum - everyone can express their understanding. If they do not have one, it is advisable to refrain from sharing anything at all.
  3. If anyone is not clear about what is written, let them ask for it to be clarified. Let us not judge or make stark statement and let us not get into mindless arguments on who knows what and who is the master of all the languages or the word of God in all the languages.

These are all applicable to everyone which includes me as well. So let the Lord lead the discussion and may we grow.

Regards,

Joe

Post by : paizanjoe  View Profile    since : 4 May 2016


Reply by : rick   View Profile   Since : 4 May 2016 1:48:13 PM Close

Not that I am trying to question you, but there is ambiguity in your posting.  This inquiry is in accordance with your condition number 3 which says: "If anyone is not clear about what is written, let them ask for it to be clarified"

  1. What is ‘unworthily’?
  2. What do you mean by "We are supposed to demonstrate the eternal love of God to everyone"
  3. When you say "Why is this deemed acceptable?" you know what is "unworthyily", so now again "what is 'unworthily'?
  4. "And how does one who has the spirit of God allow this?" This is another question of which you seem to have answer as to how the Spirit of God works, and allows or disallows.   
  5. "What is the role of the church here?"  The Church is not responsible for the errors of individuals. We can elaborate later
  6. ."If the church is corruptible, what should one ideally in this circumstance do?"  Is it hypothetical question or rhetoric?  How do you think the Church is corruptible. This is height of accusation either of Local entitity or all the saved ones put together as one in the Lord.
  7. "Should the church, which is aware of such situations even allow the breaking of the bread?" This seems a repetition of "What is the role of the church here?"
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 4 May 2016 6:57:58 PM Close

Since we need to read everything in it’s context, we are not at liberty to just pick a verse or a portion of a verse [in isolation] and make up whatever we think it should mean or go with the most familiar interpretation. This word ‘unworthily’ is grossly misapplied by many and deny the Lord’s Supper to believers. I have written on this subject years ago in this forum and if it is helpful I will locate and repost.

Unworthily – here it refers to the improper understanding about what the Lord’s Supper stands for and the abusive ways it was handled in Corinth. The worthiness of any participant comes from the Lord. Anyone who puts his or her trust in the Lord Jesus Christ for his or her forgiveness for sins, is worthy to take part in the Lord’s Supper. It is not based on man’s invitation but based on the Lord’s ‘desire’ and His invitation as we see in Luke 22. Then comes the self-examination of how each person is in relation to his or her fellowship with the Lord. This self-examination is not a license to stay away from the Lord’s Supper but for seeking forgiveness and participate.

Lord’s Supper is NEVER a tool to discipline a believer. Nowhere in the Bible have we found that. This practice of denying the ‘communion’ must have come from the unbiblical denominational practices. Follow Matthew 18 principles if discipline is required, & not denying the Lord’s Supper as a form of punishment.

Baptism is not a requirement as we [some] practice. This is a man-made addition to the Scriptures. A believer is supposed to get baptized, but it is biblically incorrect to insist as a precondition for Lord’s Supper participation. If a person got saved today, should be able to participate in the Lord’s Supper in the next moment if that is possible. As I mentioned earlier, it is the Lord’s ‘desire’ for His people to partake. But people made a mockery of it by man-made restrictions.

If you disagree to what I wrote here, please disagree on the basis of the Scriptures and please do not cite any practice one is familiar with.

I am not sure if I addressed your [paizanjoe] concerns but I just posted some general principles. Hope it helps the readers. 

Tom Johns

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abic   View Profile   Since : 5 May 2016 6:15:16 PM Close

“Lord’s Supper is NEVER a tool to discipline a believer". This is really an interesting thought for me. All these years, I have seen Lord’s Supper as a discipline tool in assemblies. As we speak now, I know personally of a scenario, where a brother is told not to take part in Lord's Supper, but he comes to the assembly, participate in singing, fellowship meals, stay the entire time etc. It’s really a difficult matter when it comes to disciplining someone. So in this case, if the assembly and elders followed Matthew 18 principle, and he/she is not willing to hear the Church, should he/she be expelled from the Church? How do we do that practically? Just tell the person not to come to the Church anymore? Even after that if he/she come, what to do? Seems it’s difficult when dealing with such situations

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 6 May 2016 4:16:51 AM Close

Dear abc, 

Matthew 18 passage reads like this -- 

15 “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’[And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

19 “Again I say[c] to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven.20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

I am not sure if all these steps are taken in the scenario that you were describing. If it is not addressed on a one one basis that is where it should start. Lot of times most of our issues can be resolved if we follow the Matthew 18 principles. In rare cases there may be some instances where someone should be treated as 'a heathen and a tax collector.' [tax collector = normal people will not associate with tax collectors of those days because they are corrupt and abusive.] - a strong suggestion not to associate with such people in a  church setting.  

But lot of times we ignore the first few steps and bring to church directly or even start treating them with contempt. This is not biblical. 

'if two or three agree on earth concerning anything that they ask & two or three are gathered in My name, I am in their midst = this means that if church Elders who are united in making this decision, the Lords blessings on that decision is going to be with them. By the way, this verse is misunderstood by many as two or three as a sufficient quorum for starting a local church. This verse is not at all talking about that. It is talking about the Lord's approval on such biblical decisions implementing church discipline. 

Tom Johns

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abic   View Profile   Since : 6 May 2016 3:20:24 PM Close

tomj,
Per my knowledge and understanding, all those steps were followed. The issue is not between two people. The issue is between one person and several people in the Church. I would say majority of the Church realize the fault is with this one person. As usual you always have some people stay neutral as they do not speak either side. Individually people have talked to this person, then it was brought to the elders, they discussed the issue with him, a few times. Then finally asked to stay away from Lord's Supper. The person still comes to the assembly as I mentioned and participate in the fellowship except Lord's Supper. So here Lord’s Supper is used as a tool for discipline.  
I truly do not know practically how you can take him out of the Church, even of you tell him, he could still come to the Church. Otherwise you have to take the matter to the Police, which is not a good thing for Christians. So I do understand it's really a difficult situation even after you follow Matthew 18. Following the principles is one thing and implementing the principles practically is not that easy. At the end of the day feels bad he comes to the assembly participate in fellowship, except Lords' Supper. Hope you understand the situation. Thanks for your insights.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 6 May 2016 7:56:01 PM Close

Dear abc, I will post an article from John MacArthur / Grace to you church in the next segment. It would explain in detail the purpose of church discipline -  But I want to make few comments before I do that. 

I have had experience with churches disciplining their members by denying the Lord’s Supper for reasons that are based on traditions. Suppose a person wear Jewelry and he or she is denied Lord’s Supper, the person denying the Lord’s Supper is responsible before the Lord. If an elder deny the Lord’s Supper for someone drinking wine or even stronger drink, that elder is responsible before the Lord.

[But drunkenness is considered as a sin, but consuming any alcoholic drink is not a sin. Gluttony is a sin, but consuming food is not a sin. Promiscuous sexual behavior is sin, but sex in itself is not sin [within the prescribed parameters.]  Covetousness is sin but providing for personal needs & saving for future is not sin. The list can go on.]

Now that I opened a can of worm with my comment about consumption of alcohol of any kind, some of you may be irate and upset and would even advise others not to read my writings. Many argue that there are many verses against the consumption of alcohol and the evil that produce. Many would say that the society is destroyed by drunkenness. I also agree to all of those. Drunkenness is sin. No question about it. But if someone is disciplined for drinking alcoholic drinks, the Lord may not be very pleased. Do you know why? Please read Deuteronomy 14:22-29. Read that passage carefully and see the mind of God in regard to His people.

[I am not encouraging alcohol consumption – but I am being faithful to what is written in the Bible. My Lord and my Savior Jesus Christ drank wine and He would drink again with His people, when He establishes His kingdom on this earth. Then, how can I say that one should be subjected to church discipline if he or she drinks wine? But I know that such things do happen and I feel bad for such situations & their misguided enthusiasm.]

Why did I say all these? I have no idea why this person [under discussion] is under the so called ‘church discipline.’ If it is done for some ‘traditional understandings’ then the elders and the rest of the congregation might be at fault. In any case, denying the Lord’s Supper is not the biblical way of disciplining. I would rather have you NOT discuss the details of this in this forum due to privacy. Please continue reading the article in the next segment. 

Tom Johns

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 6 May 2016 8:01:19 PM Close

Here is the article -

On occasion a Christian will wander away from the fellowship of other believers and find himself ensnared by sin through ignorance or willful disobedience. It then becomes necessary for the church, and particularly its shepherds, to actively seek the repentance and restoration of that Christian. As shepherds of the flock, the elders love the sheep and are also held accountable by God for their spiritual welfare, including that of the wandering sheep. As in Jesus’ parable in Luke 15:3-8, it is a time of joy, both in heaven and within the church, when the wandering Christian truly repents.

One means by which the church seeks to lovingly restore wandering believers is the process of church discipline. In Matthew 18, the Lord explains to His disciples how to respond when a fellow believer sins. The principles He sets forth must guide the body of Christ as she seeks to implement discipline in the church today.

 

 

The Purpose of Discipline

The purpose of church discipline is the spiritual restoration of fallen members and the consequent strengthening of the church and glorifying of the Lord. When a sinning believer is rebuked and he turns from his sin and is forgiven, he is won back to fellowship with the body and with its head, Jesus Christ.

The goal of church discipline, then, is not to throw people out of the church or to feed the self-righteous pride of those who administer the discipline. It is not to embarrass people or to exercise authority and power in some unbiblical manner. The purpose is to restore a sinning believer to holiness and bring him back into a pure relationship within the assembly.

In Matthew 18:15, Jesus says, “And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.” The Greek word translated “won” was originally used of accumulating wealth in the sense of monetary commodities. Here it refers to the gaining back of something of value that is lost, namely, an erring brother. When a brother or sister strays, a valuable treasure is lost, and the church should not be content until he or she is restored. The body of Christ is in the business of recovery (Gal. 6:1), and such is the purpose of church discipline.

 

 

The Process of Discipline

In Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus sets forth the four step process of church discipline: (1) tell him his sin alone; (2) take some witnesses; (3) tell the church; and (4) treat him as an outsider.

Step One (Matt. 18:15). The process of church discipline begins on an individual level. Jesus said, “And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private” (v. 15a). Here, an individual believer is to go to a sinning brother privately and confront him in a spirit of humility and gentleness. This confrontation involves clearly exposing his sin so that he is aware of it and calling him to repentance. If the sinning brother repents in response to the private confrontation, that brother is forgiven and restored (v. 15b).

Step Two (Matt. 18:16). If the sinning brother refuses to listen to the one who has rebuked him privately, the next step in the discipline process is to take one or two more believers along to confront him again (v. 16a). The purpose of taking other believers is so that “by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed” (v. 16b). In other words, the witnesses are present not only to confirm that the sin was committed but, in addition, to confirm that the sinning brother was properly rebuked and that he has or has not repented.

The purpose of church discipline is
the spiritual restoration of fallen
members and the consequent
strengthening of the church and
glorifying of the Lord.

The presence of additional witnesses is as much a protection for the one being approached as it is for the one approaching. After all, a biased person could erroneously say, “Well, I tried to confront him, but he’s impenitent.” It would be presumptuous to think that one person could make that ultimate determination, especially if he was the one who had been sinned against. The witnesses need to confirm whether there is a heart of repentance or one of indifference or rejection. Such a report provides the basis for further action because the situation has been verified beyond the report of one individual.

At this point, it should be hoped that the one or two who are brought along to confront the sinner will not have to become public witnesses against him before the rest of the church. Ideally, their added rebuke will be sufficient to induce a change of heart in the offending brother that the initial rebuke did not cause. If this change of heart does occur, that brother is forgiven and restored, and the matter is dropped.

Step Three (Matt. 18:17a). If the sinning brother refuses to listen and respond to the confrontation of the witnesses after a period of time, those witnesses are then to tell it to the church (v. 17a). This is most appropriately done by bringing the matter to the attention of the elders, who in turn oversee its communication to the assembly as a whole.

How long should the witnesses continue to call the person to repentance before telling the church? The elders at Grace Community Church avoid carrying out the third or fourth stage of church discipline until they are absolutely certain that the erring believer has truly sinned, or is continuing to sin, and that he has refused to repent when appropriately confronted. The elders will routinely send a letter by registered mail warning the individual that the third (or fourth) step of discipline will be taken if they have not received word of repentance by a specific date. When this date has passed, the person’s sin and refusal to repent are made known publicly, either before the entire assembly during a Communion service or through a fellowship group in which the person is known.

It has been the custom at Grace Community Church, upon enacting this third step, to clearly indicate to the congregation that they are to pursue the person aggressively and plead with him to repent before the fourth step becomes necessary. That crucial and potent procedure often draws the sinner to repentance and obedience. If repentance does take place, the sinning believer is forgiven and restored.

Step Four (Matt. 18:17b). The fourth and final step in the process of church discipline is ostracism. If a sinning believer refuses to listen even to the church, he is to be ostracized from the fellowship. Jesus said, “let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer” (v. 17b). The term “Gentile” was primarily used of non-Jews who held to their traditional paganism and had no part in the covenant, worship, or social life of the Jews. On the other hand, a “tax-gatherer” was an outcast from the Jews by choice, having become a traitor to his own people. Jesus’ use of these terms doesn’t mean that the church is to treat these people badly. It simply means that when a professing believer refuses to repent, the church is to treat him as if he were outside of the fellowship. They are not to let him associate and participate in the blessings and benefits of the Christian assembly.

When a man in the Corinthian church refused to forsake an incestuous relationship with his stepmother, the apostle Paul commanded that the man be removed from their midst (1 Cor. 5:13). The believers there were not even to share a meal with him (1 Cor. 5:11), for dining with someone was symbolic of a hospitable and cordial fellowship. The one who is persistently unrepentant is to be totally ostracized from the fellowship of the church and treated like an outcast, not a brother.

As far as the welfare of the church is concerned, the purpose of putting the brother out is to protect the purity of the fellowship (1 Cor. 5:6), to warn the assembly of the seriousness of sin (1 Tim. 5:20), and to give a testimony of righteousness to a watching world. But as far as the welfare of the brother himself is concerned, the purpose of the ostracism is not to punish but to awaken, and it must therefore be done in humble love and never in a spirit of self-righteous superiority (2 Thess. 3:15).

When a church has done everything it can to bring a sinning member back to purity of life but is unsuccessful, that individual is to be left to his sin and his shame. If he is truly a Christian, God will not cast him away, but He may allow him to sink still deeper before he becomes desperate enough to turn from his sin.

The command not to have fellowship or even social contact with the unrepentant brother does not exclude all contact. When there is an opportunity to admonish him and try to call him back, the opportunity should be taken. In fact, such opportunities should be sought. But the contact should be for the purpose of admonishment and restoration and no other.

Adapted from John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Matthew 16–23(Chicago: Moody Press, 1988); John MacArthur, The Master’s Plan for the Church (Chicago: Moody Press, 1991); and Stuart Scott and George Crawford, “Restoring the Wandering Sheep,” (unpublished paper). For a fuller treatment of church discipline, consult these resources.

Posted by Tom Johns

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 8 May 2016 5:55:43 AM Close

Hello,

As mentioned earlier, there is no problem if one questions the other so long as it done with the right intention. Unlike what has been practised earlier. I think with my thoughts below, you (Rick) might get the clarification that is required. Because all your questions are questions to my questions made more confusing? So even I do not understand where you are getting to unless the thoughts are there below.

Yes (Tom J), I agree with the fact that the prevention of one from taking the Lord’s table is being misused in many churches and assemblies.  But I don’t agree with the fact that verses cannot be taken in isolation. If that is the case – we should stop the practice of sharing a verse for encouragement, admonition, teaching etc. We see in the churches and assemblies only one verse being put up. Even those should be stopped and the entire chapter applied. For e.g. Psalms 23.1 should then henceforth be Psalm 23: 1-6. 

There are reasons for why a single verse is taken in context and then other reference ‘single verse’ drawn up. I believe the Word of God is connected to give us the same level of understanding on every situation and outcome. After all, it is the same spirit in all the writers of the scriptures. These are not isolated verses but connected with the deeper truth of understanding of how believers should be and how the church should function.

Keeping that in mind. I am a firm believer of Mathew 18:21. If tomorrow, I am not able to go to church but if I get the opportunity to sit and break it with my wife or some believers at home. I would do it. It is not to start a church. The circumstance and occasion call for the Lord to be worshipped. It is to remember Him. I am also of the belief one needs to go to the nearest church possible because that is what is instituted when the apostles established churches in different vicinities. Why I said this is because I have seen believers in India, US, Australia and UAE who go to a great extent of travel even though they have a local church close by. I don’t wish to comment on that – to each, their own.

I had also gone through the postings (Tom J) that you put up and yes, I agree with the principle and direction it has taken. My intention when I asked those question was not to commit some delusional catharsis of the church. Let me elaborate on this.

When you partake in the Lords table there is self-examination. When you partake it with other members at a designated and common place of gathering. It is the church. The church gathers and worships the Lord in unity. This is clearly explained in Ephesians 4:1-6.

I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;

Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Now in this with regards to the aspect of baptism. Baptism might not be a precondition in participating in the Lord’s table. But baptism is an essential component in a believer’s testimony.  The first of the soul, the second a demonstration to the world. The practice that people do these days when a person is saved is, that they wait for approvals from the ‘higher authorities’ for the person to be baptised. 

Which should not be the case?

If you refer to the Acts of the Apostles. A person believes, he/she is immediately baptised. For e.g. people in Jerusalem, the eunuch, Paul etc. and so forth. It is an immediate step when one believes. If we take it as the word of God says, then the question of precondition or necessity does not arise. Because the believer does it by default after a person believes. And that is what Christ commanded: Mathew 28: 19-20.

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

 Now the aspect of partaking of the Lords’ table. Since I don’t want this to be a long post, I am going to put my thought in points.

  1. If there is contention between two brothers/sisters/family and the church is aware of it. Then necessary steps need to be taken in a Godly manner to resolve it. When the apostles write to the church, they are pinpointing one brother/situation – but the accountability of the church as whole in front of God.  It is a WE and not YOU in the verse (I Cor 11:29-30)

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

  1.  These things should not be done in a begrudging manner. If a believer who is a led by the Lord sees a person weak in that circumstance can actually warn or admonish the brother/sister on why he/she should not participate. This also with all meekness and humility and also if the person who admonishes bears a good testimony. Because if your words are as per Colossians 4:5-6, people will see it and realise it since the spirit of God works there.

Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time. Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

Regards,

Joe.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : rick   View Profile   Since : 8 May 2016 12:34:00 PM Close

Hello (‘paizanjoe’)

This is what you wrote in the first post.

The topic of discussion is: What do people today deem as ‘unworthily’?

In many assemblies, brethren across the world gather to together to remember the Lord, his sufferings and his great sacrifice. We are supposed to demonstrate the eternal love of God to everyone. But in many instances, people in the church break bread even though they themselves have issues with one another. My question here is:

  1. Why is this deemed acceptable? And how does one who has the spirit of God allow this?
  2. What is the role of the church here? If the church is corruptible, what should one ideally in this circumstance do?
  3. Should the church, which is aware of such situations even allow the breaking of the bread?

The premise for your discussion was based on two points:

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord”
 

1 John 4:20

If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

Later on in the recent post you added: Ephesians 4:1-6

  1. If your initial post was not ambiguous I would not have asked you questions. Question 1 Why is this deemed acceptable? And how does one who has the spirit of God allow this?

This question shows that you have pre-determined what is “Unworthily” according to your understanding and raised a discussion on it. Your two points supporting your understanding of “unworthy” are not in consonance with the meaning of “unworthy” used in 1 Corinthians 11:24-27

First of all, you should understand the audience to whom it was addressed, and secondly the reason why it was said so. There was no connection between 1 Corinthians 11:24-27 and 1 John 4:20 and Ephesians 4:1-6. You have picked some verses at random and then tried to establish connection and form doctrines out of them.

If you have excuse that “I am unworthy to take part in Lord’s supper because I am loggerheads with my brother, I must wait until I become worthy” you will never be able to take part in the Lord’s supper in your life-time. That was not intended in the said passage. The warning was given because of their irregular and indecent observance of Lord’s Supper in the existing church at Corinth. There was gluttony and intemperance that prevailed in observance of Lord’s Supper, and their celebration was mockery of Lord’s Supper. They did not honor Lord's Supper as they should and did not perceive rightly the importance of emblems which represented the body and blood Christ. It was against this practice that Paul led by the Holy Spirit wrote those words.

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 8 May 2016 2:46:16 PM Close

Hello 'Rick',

Your points in italic.

This question shows that you have pre-determined what is “Unworthily” according to your understanding and raised a discussion on it. Your two points supporting your understanding of “unworthy” are not in consonance with the meaning of “unworthy” used in 1 Corinthians 11:24-27

In any of my statements where did I establish a notion or stated that I have 'predetermined'.? 

Second, do you have a different interpretation of the word 'unworthy or unworthily'? Cause I think the word of God is very clear in how one should participate in the Lord's table. If you don't do a self-examination and is found wanting, and then participation leads to the Lord's judgement. The effect is mentioned when one did that in the Corinthian church. If you think it would not apply to believers today as well, then we have reached an impasse.

First of all, you should understand the audience to whom it was addressed, and secondly the reason why it was said so. There was no connection between 1 Corinthians 11:24-27 and 1 John 4:20 and Ephesians 4:1-6. You have picked some verses at random and then tried to establish connection and form doctrines out of them.

No verse which I have mentioned is in 'random'. The church is a constitution of Christ, Brothers and Sisters. Anyone who partakes in it and does so in because of the eternal foundation which Christ laid that we love each other. If we don't love each other, what fellowship are you then talking about? Even when you partake in the Lords table. you don't do it alone, it is a fellowship. A gathering of the Lord's people. Are you telling me now it is still not correlated? Can a brother who hates his brother partake in the Lords table without self-examination? What is your logic? Circumstances and instances of weakness in the church or a congregation might be different. But the teaching of the spirit is the same.

If you have excuse that “I am unworthy to take part in Lord’s supper because I am loggerheads with my brother, I must wait until I become worthy” you will never be able to take part in the Lord’s supper in your life-time. That was not intended in the said passage. The warning was given because of their irregular and indecent observance of Lord’s Supper in the existing church at Corinth. There was gluttony and intemperance that prevailed in observance of Lord’s Supper, and their celebration was mockery of Lord’s Supper. They did not honor Lord's Supper as they should and did not perceive rightly the importance of emblems which represented the body and blood Christ. It was against this practice that Paul led by the Holy Spirit wrote those words.

What is the difference that you see which is not prevalent in today's churches? If it is written there, it is also written for us. there are other matters more severe that affect the churches today. Yes. If you are at 'loggerheads' with your brother. You go out make peace with him and then participate in the Lords table and have all the fellowship with the church. That's what the scripture teaches. The scripture also teaches us the power of introspection and forgiveness. If we can do that, nobody can stop us. even the church which is the bride of Christ will be happy to see that. It is the most powerful entity after Christ. We fail to realise its potential since we do not experience the power of the spirit working in it and through the believers who work as one.  If you have anything that says that is not how it should be, then we reached an impasse here as well.

I rest my case for now :-).

Regards,

Joe.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : rick   View Profile   Since : 9 May 2016 2:04:53 AM Close

You are not understanding what you are writing and then you ask question again as

Quote: “In any of my statements where did I establish a notion or stated that I have ‘predetermined’.. “

Here is what you wrote:

What do people today deem as ‘unworthily’?

In many assemblies, brethren across the world gather to together to remember the Lord, his sufferings and his great sacrifice. We are supposed to demonstrate the eternal love of God to everyone. But in many instances, people in the church break bread even though they themselves have issues with one another. My question here is:

  1. Why is this deemed acceptable? And how does one who has the spirit of God allow this?
  2. What is the role of the church here? If the church is corruptible, what should one ideally in this circumstance do?
  3. Should the church, which is aware of such situations even allow the breaking of the bread?

You did not define what is “unworthy”  or  “unworthily” and yet make a statement which reads:

“In many assemblies, brethren across the world gather to together to remember the Lord, his sufferings and his great sacrifice. We are supposed to demonstrate the eternal love of God to everyone. But in many instances, people in the church break bread even though they themselves have issues with one another”

In how many assemblies you saw drunkards casual partakers of the Lord’s Supper? Here is what Paul saw…

“Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.  For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.  When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.  For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not”  (1 Corinthians 11:17-22)

Where did you get the idea from that these things are followed in many assemblies as you put it. You seem to be intemperate and accusing without any thought as to what you are writing.

What is that strange phrase you used “. We are supposed to demonstrate the eternal love of God to everyone” Eternal love of God..!  and we are supposed to demonstrate? What are you trying to say? You want all believers to become like Jesus right now. It is possible only in perfect sanctification and it is the Lord who is going to conform us to his image when comes again. Not possible now.  You picked up ‘love’ as the criterion to fulfill the condition to participate in the Lord’s Supper.  Why did you miss ‘joy’, ‘peace’, ‘longsuffering’, ‘gentleness’, ‘goodness’, ‘faith’. Do you have all these every day? What you do if your colleague offends you? On Sunday morning just before entering the Church if you have al  altercation with a stranger and that renders you to lose joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, do you not participate until you locate him and if you cannot locate him for a year do you keep yourself away participating in the Lord’s supper. There are several of such situations arise one’s life in day-to-day life especially those who are in business field. You are making doctrines for all of then they should never participate in the Lord’s table until they locate them and reconcile with them. Many situations are irreconcilable.

Do you know the meaning of “Why is this deemed acceptable?”

You meant something when you said “why is this”.. What is that “this” then?  What is that was “deemed” as acceptable? Obviously you knew that which you thought what “unworthy’ is. You could not define “unworthy” and therefore, you attributed lack of love as “unworthy”. That is because you picked 1 John 4:20 as the foundation on which you could construct the definition of “unworthy” .  In addition, you said “And how does one who has the spirit of God allow this?”

Continuing on the same thought you brought Ephesians 4:1-6 as also condition for participating in the Lord’s Supper.

“I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,  With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Ephesians 4:1-6)

Quote: “What is the difference that you see which is not prevalent in today's churches? If it is written there, it is also written for us. there are other matters more severe that affect the churches today. Yes. If you are at 'loggerheads' with your brother. You go out make peace with him and then participate in the Lords table and have all the fellowship with the church. That's what the scripture teaches. The scripture also teaches us the power of introspection and forgiveness. If we can do that, nobody can stop us. even the church which is the bride of Christ will be happy to see that. It is the most powerful entity after Christ. We fail to realise its potential since we do not experience the power of the spirit working in it and through the believers who work as one.  If you have anything that says that is not how it should be, then we reached an impasse here as well.”

I think, you have no basic idea as to why Lord’s Supper is celebrated. This is what Jesus did.

“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.  And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom” (Matthew 26:26-29)

I hope you understood the purpose why this is done.  As Paul explains it is done to remember the Lord’s death

“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.  Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:26-27)

To be specific about 1 Cor. 11:27 it is not to take part ‘unworthily’ which is to say not to take part with irreverence; not to take part in disorderly manner. Otherwise, the participant is guilty of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.   It does not in any way connect to the love one has to have towards another.

You built constraints for your sake and you follow them for your good or bad. Do not teach others your doctrines. There is no other expression in the Bible than the word “unworthy” or “unworthily” has created troubles and confusion in the minds of weak believers, and you seem surely to be one such troubled man. 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 9 May 2016 10:55:00 AM Close

My comments in italic bold and then I leave to your own understanding and working

You are not understanding what you are writing and then you ask question again as

Quote: “In any of my statements where did I establish a notion or stated that I have ‘predetermined’.. “

Here is what you wrote:

What do people today deem as ‘unworthily’?

In many assemblies, brethren across the world gather to together to remember the Lord, his sufferings and his great sacrifice. We are supposed to demonstrate the eternal love of God to everyone. But in many instances, people in the church break bread even though they themselves have issues with one another. My question here is:

  1. Why is this deemed acceptable? And how does one who has the spirit of God allow this?
  2. What is the role of the church here? If the church is corruptible, what should one ideally in this circumstance do?
  3. Should the church, which is aware of such situations even allow the breaking of the bread?

You did not define what is “unworthy”  or  “unworthily” and yet make a statement which reads:

“In many assemblies, brethren across the world gather to together to remember the Lord, his sufferings and his great sacrifice. We are supposed to demonstrate the eternal love of God to everyone. But in many instances, people in the church break bread even though they themselves have issues with one another”

In how many assemblies you saw drunkards casual partakers of the Lord’s Supper? Here is what Paul saw…

“Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.  For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.  When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.  For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not”  (1 Corinthians 11:17-22)

Where did you get the idea from that these things are followed in many assemblies as you put it. You seem to be intemperate and accusing without any thought as to what you are writing.

These statements after quoting my verse clearly prove that you refuse to let go of your preconceived notion. Let me elaborate,but before that ask you a question?

Is it your notion that only drunkenness is an aspect of not keeping the sanctity of the Lords table and having a fellowship? 

I don’t know where you are based at and really don’t concern myself with that. But I speak from experience and observing. It was also one of the sad things to see that in one of the assemblies where brothers nearly got into blows and also had chairs flung just before the assembly had the worship. If you think you live where nothing of this sort happens, then brother, I am happy for you that you have the perfect church which Christ wants.

In addition to this, in 1 Corinthians 6: 7-11. 

'Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.'

We are people who going to inherit the kingdom of God. Till it comes, we are supposed to participate in remembering Him. The clear cut guideline is given who will not inherit it. If you are a child of God, and no some unrighteousness is happening within you, or in the church, it will grieve you. If it does not. Then the spirit of God is not working in you. Can you in the right mind with the spirit's guidance participate in his table if there is some shortcoming that you have not addressed?

This was supposed to be a discussion where people could bring in their points of what is deemed worthy or unworthily. I state again – this is your notion. those where questions, if you had answer you would not have asked the question, if you had an opinion, you would have expressed it. Seems none of this was done. Apart from some statements.

What is that strange phrase you used “. We are supposed to demonstrate the eternal love of God to everyone” Eternal love of God..!  and we are supposed to demonstrate? What are you trying to say? You want all believers to become like Jesus right now. It is possible only in perfect sanctification and it is the Lord who is going to conform us to his image when comes again. Not possible now.  You picked up ‘love’ as the criterion to fulfill the condition to participate in the Lord’s Supper.  Why did you miss ‘joy’, ‘peace’, ‘longsuffering’, ‘gentleness’, ‘goodness’, ‘faith’. Do you have all these every day? What you do if your colleague offends you? On Sunday morning just before entering the Church if you have al  altercation with a stranger and that renders you to lose joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, do you not participate until you locate him and if you cannot locate him for a year do you keep yourself away participating in the Lord’s supper. There are several of such situations arise one’s life in day-to-day life especially those who are in business field. You are making doctrines for all of then they should never participate in the Lord’s table until they locate them and reconcile with them. Many situations are irreconcilable.

Where does joy, peace long-suffering etc. come from? You clearly undermine the power of love and Christ. What are commandments which Christ gave when he was on earth? Let me refresh these portions for you and then get into your argument.

Mark 12:30-31

"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."

What are the most important three things that remain? Please read I Corinthians 13 as well. Everything that transpires on the believer’s life and his/her fellowship.

What do you mean by irreconcilable? Are you saying things in this world cannot be sorted and reconciled? That if you sincerely believe in the Lord and ask for some sort of appeasement with a brother/sister or people outside it wouldn’t happen? That as children of God who has the spirit you would not have the presence of mind to make peace before you go do your introspection and participate in the table? I don’t know where you come from, but in the Lord everything is possible. If that is the case, everything is reconcilable. If you are not able to ‘locate’ a person and reconcile with him/her over some shortcomings in today's world. Then I presume the people who go by this logic live in prehistoric times. Even then, it does not hold true, because we have God who can do the impossible. If you sincerely believe and have the aspect which is love and there is genuineness, there is nothing that can stop you from participating in the Lords table with gladness because of  1 Peter 4:8: "And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins." If you keep some issue or problems with one another and deem it "irreconcilable", then there is nothing more to say. 

Will continue in my next post.

Regards,

Joe.

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 9 May 2016 11:29:13 AM Close
  • And I continue in italic bold and bulleted.

Do you know the meaning of “Why is this deemed acceptable?”

You meant something when you said “why is this”.. What is that “this” then?  What is that was “deemed” as acceptable? Obviously you knew that which you thought what “unworthy’ is. You could not define “unworthy” and therefore, you attributed lack of love as “unworthy”. That is because you picked 1 John 4:20 as the foundation on which you could construct the definition of “unworthy” .  In addition, you said “And how does one who has the spirit of God allow this?”

Continuing on the same thought you brought Ephesians 4:1-6 as also condition for participating in the Lord’s Supper.

“I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,  With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Ephesians 4:1-6)

Quote: “What is the difference that you see which is not prevalent in today's churches? If it is written there, it is also written for us. there are other matters more severe that affect the churches today. Yes. If you are at 'loggerheads' with your brother. You go out make peace with him and then participate in the Lords table and have all the fellowship with the church. That's what the scripture teaches. The scripture also teaches us the power of introspection and forgiveness. If we can do that, nobody can stop us. even the church which is the bride of Christ will be happy to see that. It is the most powerful entity after Christ. We fail to realise its potential since we do not experience the power of the spirit working in it and through the believers who work as one.  If you have anything that says that is not how it should be, then we reached an impasse here as well.”

I think, you have no basic idea as to why Lord’s Supper is celebrated. This is what Jesus did.

  • When was the Lords supper ‘celebrated’? Is that the word used in the scriptures? As far as I recall or have read. You do it in remembrance of him. And we remember it for His death, His sacrifice, the price He paid. Maybe it is a celebration from overcoming Death and the sting of sin, if that is what you mean. 
  • But I don’t think the word celebrate is associated it with Lord’s table. If it is there – please provide the same. 
  • You cannot come  to the table and participate if you have not done your own self-examination. If you have done your own self-examination and believed in an ‘A let it be attitude’. Then “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” applies. If you think not, then we have reached an impasse and will not discuss this no more.

“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.  And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom” (Matthew 26:26-29)

I hope you understood the purpose why this is done.  As Paul explains it is done to remember the Lord’s death

“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.  Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:26-27)

To be specific about 1 Cor. 11:27 it is not to take part ‘unworthily’ which is to say not to take part with irreverence; not to take part in a disorderly manner. Otherwise, the participant is guilty of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.   It does not in any way connect to the love one has to have towards another.

You built constraints for your sake and you follow them for your good or bad. Do not teach others your doctrines. There is no other expression in the Bible than the word “unworthy” or “unworthily” has created troubles and confusion in the minds of weak believers, and you seem sure to be one such troubled man. 

  • I am a little baffled and perplexed by your statement “To be specific about 1 Cor. 11:27 it is not to take part ‘unworthily’ which is to say not to take part with irreverence; not to take part in disorderly manner.” After that, you completely lost me and then found me since you used 'choice words' :-) in the end.
  • Let me ask a few questions and see if you can come up with some answers to them. The answers could be kept short to yes or no. Anything above that would raise confusion as you stated. Since you call me a troubled man. Yes of course, every believer on this earth is troubled with the burden of the souls inside and outside the church. I take pride in Christ of being troubled for his word and for His people.
  • Coming back to the questions:
  1. Did the Lord institute the supper?
  2. If the Lord instituted it, did He ask us to do it in remembrance of Him, His death and sacrifice?
  3. Do people who believe, Brothers and sisters in Christ participate in the Lord’s table (2,3, 5, 10 etc.)?
  4. Are these people who are participating, in fellowship with each other? (Irrespective of whether they are temporary or permanent)
  5. Do you think I as an individual after self-examination having a long term/short term issue with a brother/sister or any other shortcomings should avoid partaking in it till I resolve it since my conscience has burdened me with it?
  6. Do you think if an elder/capable brother know of my shortcomings (me being ‘weak’ not realising it) could advise me through the spirit and humbleness to avoid it so as to protect me?
  7. And finally, Can people who have issues with anyone and everyone, create problems, etc participate in the Lord’s table?
  8. Or should they be allowed to be?

That’s it. I shall not comment on your points after this.

Regards,

Joe

 

 

 

 

 

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abic   View Profile   Since : 9 May 2016 5:34:27 PM Close

Thanks tomj. I understand and onboard with that Lord ’s Supper should not be a discipline tool. In fact I was pointing out that the person participate in all church fellowship except Lord’s Supper, that seems weird to me. And I have seen this practice in several assemblies that I associated with. Since I don’t want to disclose any details, but I still think implementing the Matthew 18 principle is really a difficult task practically. God bless you.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : rick   View Profile   Since : 9 May 2016 11:28:49 PM Close

This is addressed to " paizanjoe"

You are baffled and perplexed because you use synonyms. You get confused and bewildered because you did not understand what you wrote and keep repeating to make circular arguments. Do you need scrptural references for words used in conversation. It is enough you understand the dictionary meaning and the meaning of celebrate is:

verb (used with object), celebrated, celebrating. 

1. to observe (a day) or commemorate (an event) with ceremonies or festivities:
to celebrate Christmas; to celebrate the success of a new play.

2.to make known publicly; proclaim:
The newspaper celebrated the end of the war in red headlines.

3.to praise widely or to present to widespread and favorable public notice, as through newspapers or novels:
a novel celebrating the joys of marriage; the countryside celebrated in the novels of Hardy.

4.to perform with appropriate rites and ceremonies; solemnize:
to celebrate a marriage.

verb (used without object), celebrated, celebrating. 

5.to observe a day or commemorate an event with ceremonies or festivities.

6.to perform a religious ceremony, especially Mass or the Lord's Supper.

7.to have or participate in a party, drinking spree, or uninhibited good time:

celebrate. Dictionary.com. Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/celebrate (accessed: May 09, 2016).

I have highlighted item 6 for you.

I don't need to answer or  explain any of your questions because it serves no purpose. My conclusion about is very apt and if I may reiterate it, it is:

"You built constraints for your sake and you follow them for your good or bad. Do not teach others your doctrines. There is no other expression in the Bible than the word “unworthy” or “unworthily” has created troubles and confusion in the minds of weak believers, and you seem surely to be one such troubled man"  By the way I have to tell you that Church is never corrupted. People in the Church may be corrupt. Surprisingly you belong or visited or part of some church where there were rowdies, and not believers, where fellowship meals in love may be more important than remembering Lord's death.  Yea, fellowship meals were prominent in Corinthian Church, and your church may be one that had similar characteristics. In my several years of Christian life, I have never come across any such horrible incidents that you have described. My Church is perfect. Individuals in the Church are fallibles, and restored by the Lord when they come in repentance.

This should answer all your bewilderment. Let me repeat it:

"To be specific about 1 Cor. 11:27 it is not to take part ‘unworthily’ which is to say not to take part with irreverence; not to take part in disorderly manner. Otherwise, the participant is guilty of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.   It does not in any way connect to the love one has to have towards another".  It is the relationship of individual believer with the Lord that matters and it is not a time where salvation message is taught or try to inherit the kingdom of God. it is a time to remember the Lord's death.  You have lot of errors in your beliefs. I noticed them not only in this thread but in other threads, as well.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 10 May 2016 4:00:45 AM Close

Dear Rick.

I know what I write and I know the logic which I give you based on scripture. 

  1. You have given me a dictionary definition which also includes the words 'religious ceremony',  'Mass' and 'Lord's supper' in the same sentence. This had been given as an example, so you know who has provided it. Please note the word 'remembering' which is mentioned in the scripture in reference to the table (for which I can give multiple references from the scripture) and 'celebrating' (dictionary as you provided) are two different words.  I accept if you say you 'celebrate' the victory over sin and grant of eternal life and with that you want to celebrate the His table. Or is it like some south indian tradition where people don't mourn but celebrate when a person dies whilst they carry the body to pyre? Whatever, may God give us all the wisdom.
  2. There is the church which Christ has ordained as his bride (which are all the believers who worship Him - past, present and future) and then there are 'churches' (present and local) on earth. You say the church is infallible/perfect, but people are not. People make the church. Only one example: Romans 16:5, you can refer to it. It is these bodies that make the church. Believers are the blocks that build the church. Yes, the final church (the bride) presented to Christ would be infallible, but currently, that church is being built. And I don't think I need to explain what goes into building it. And each church which is being built is done for the Lord. And each and every member have their responsibilities to grow in Him and shed all aspects of weakness. 
  3. You do an introspection and then gather and have fellowship to break the Lord's table. Paul asks each and every believer to do that, before they break bread and it is done in fellowship. Otherwise, you can sit at home and break/not break bread on your own. When you gather in His name, you do it to remember Him. You have to be careful how You remember him when you partake in His table. Because if you are letting a person with questionable character break bread with you in front of believers who are strong and weak - then that is not the church and that is not the Lord's table.
  4. You are lucky to have not seen or participated in such things which you rightly say is not the church. But as per your understanding, fellowship and Lords table are two different aspects. If that is your consideration that I am erring in thought in addition to your judgemental statement of being erring in all 'earlier threads'. Then so be it.  People gather together, they have fellowship and then break bread. It is that gathering or fellowship that brings people together to remember Him Before they do it, they self examine, it could be done earlier or even before partaking. In any case, participation is done in fellowship. If that is hard to understand, then let the Lord provide the wisdom. Introspection is one thing. Participation another and Judgement at the end. Let the Lord be merciful

Regards,

Joe

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : rick   View Profile   Since : 10 May 2016 6:38:10 AM Close

Dear Joe,

You have taken this discussion to a different course.  You picked up one English word and thought the meaning is different. It is not so.  Read first few sentences from your post. It is not “Mass and Lord’s Supper” but it is “Mass or Lord’s Supper”, which means it could be any one of them.  The word celebrate was used in several places in the Scriptures. For example…

It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath.  (Leviticus 23:32)

And ye shall keep it a feast unto the LORD seven days in the year. It shall be a statute for ever in your generations: ye shall celebrate it in the seventh month. (Leviticus 23:41)

For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth. (Isaiah 38:18)

Read  Isaiah 38:18. Here is the word was translated from Hebrew Strong’s number 1984. “halal” and this was used in the following references.

Ge 12:15; Jg 16:24; 1Sa 21:13; 2Sa 14:25; 22:4; 1Ki 20:11; 1Ch 16:4,10,25,36; 23:5,30; 25:3; 29:13; 2Ch 5:13; 7:6; 8:14; 20:19,21; 23:12-13; 29:30; 30:21; 31:2; Ezr 3:10-11; Ne 5:13; 12:24; Job 12:17; 29:3; 31:26; 41:18; Ps 5:5; 10:3; 18:3; 22:22-23,26; 34:2; 35:18; 44:8; 48:1; 49:6; 52:1; 56:4,10; 63:5,11; 64:10; 69:30,34; 73:3; 74:21; 75:4; 78:63; 84:4; 96:4; 97:7; 102:8,18; 104:35; 105:3,45; 106:1,5,48; 107:32; 109:30; 111:1; 112:1; 113:1,3,9; 115:17-18; 116:19; 117:1-2; 119:164,175; 135:1,3,21; 145:2-3; 146:1-2,10; 147:1,12,20; 148:1-5,7,13-14; 149:1,3,9; 150:1-6; Pr 12:8; 20:14; 25:14; 27:1-2; 28:4; 31:28,30-31; Ec 2:2; 7:7; Song 6:9; Isa 13:10; 38:18; 41:16; 44:25; 45:25; 62:9; 64:11; Jer 4:2; 9:23-24; 20:13; 25:16; 31:7; 46:9; 49:4; 50:38; 51:7; Eze 26:17; Joe 2:26; Na 2:4

You may also know the Lord instituted the “Lord’s Supper” after celebrating the “Passover” feast and after its pattern to remember the deliverance from death. Gong through the verse Exo. 12:23 in its context provides the meaning of it.

"For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you". (Exodus 12:23)

You wrote: “Please note the word 'remembering' which is mentioned in the scripture in reference to the table (for which I can give multiple references from the scripture)”

Go ahead and post those multiple references (other than 1 Cor.11:25) which refer to the Lord’s table.

"After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me" (1 Corinthians 11:25). .

In your second paragraph you wrote about the church.  Notice what Paul writes in 2 Cor. 11:2

“For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:2)

Paul’s desire to present the church was a “chaste virgin”. You wrote “People make the church”.  People do not make the church but born-again people, who are justified as ‘righteous’ will make the church. When born-again believer falls and commits a sin, although his salvation is not lost, yet he is not in fellowship with the Lord as long as he returns to Him; and when he is in sin, he is not a part of that ‘bride’, who is ‘chaste virgin’. So the church is never imperfect.

You quoted Romans 16:5

“Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my well beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ”. (Romans 16:5)

What are you trying to communicate from that verse?

In your third paragraph you wrote:

Quote: “You do an introspection and then gather and have fellowship to break the Lord's table”

So, do you mean believers gather to have fellowship to break the Lord’s table. I think that is why some rowdies from that Church which you quoted flung the chairs.

What introspection do you make when you are at the Lord’s Supper?  Is it how you offended somebody, and if so, would you leave the place go and reconcile with him and come back and take part in the Lord’s Table.  Give me few examples as to what introspection you make.This is very important for this discussion.

In your 4th paragraph, you said I am lucky to be part a church not similar to that of some churches where you were part of and people flung chairs. The word ‘lucky’ cannot be used in Christendom. My salvation, the existence of the church, where I am part of, are not the products or the results of any luck. Continue and post some relationship between fellowship and Lord’s Supper; probably we can decipher what they are indeed.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paulthomas1   View Profile   Since : 10 May 2016 3:38:29 PM Close

Rick - If it helps read the first post. I just have a feeling you are really confused.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paulthomas1   View Profile   Since : 10 May 2016 3:54:36 PM Close
  1. Why is this deemed acceptable? And how does one who has the spirit of God allow this?

People are going to have issues, and I have not seen a single church were everyone is fine with each other (even among elders they have attitude problems). Having said that if there is a dispute between 2 believers they need to settle the matter at the earliest (Matt 18 as Tom J posted earlier), among men and also reconcile with God - ask forgiveness and forsake.

What is the role of the church here? If the church is corruptible, what should one ideally in this circumstance do?

I understand your question here- meaning the people that form the local body has a sinful nature. So sin is inevitable. If there is no fellowship with the Father through the son with a clean conscience one should not break bread!

Should the church, which is aware of such situations even allow the breaking of the bread? 

Church has no right to allow or dis-allow anyone to break bread. The elders do not own the Church to do as they like. If there scripture that allows the Church to deny anyone the emblems?

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paulthomas1   View Profile   Since : 10 May 2016 3:56:51 PM Close

@abic - Can you share your thoughts on why is it difficuilt to implement Matt 18? Let's start with the first step.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 11 May 2016 12:50:00 PM Close

Hello,

Thank you, Paul Thomas. It is when a few people understand the intention and post that one feels a little bit at ease in discussing. I admit the few posts that have come out has been deviant to what the topic is. I apologise for the delay in my response on this topic, I was a little tied up with other things. I wanted to also take time and post my responses after a lot of thought and introspection. This ideally would be my last few posts on this if the topic takes a turn going on a different tangent, I think now, it is better to leave it as it is and let people have their own perspective on it.

Let me summarise on what I believe in based on the scripture and its discernment.  There would be three different posts with heading and the topic which were discussed. Hopefully, I should be able to present my stance without the help of words in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or what, not languages.

Lords supper: celebration or remembrance?

What is the difference here? There are many schools of thoughts which say it is a celebration. Let's look at celebration – Rick has provided us with the aspects, meanings and examples of celebration.

Let me take those verses, one from the gospel of Matthew and the other from 1 Corinthians

Matthew 26: 26-28 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

1 Corinthians 11: 24-29 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

When you look at the verses there is a clear cut understanding that one understands the gravity and depth of the eternal price of redemption that was paid by His death. If you study it in detail you will see the following:

  1. He instituted His table for all that were going to be redeemed
  2. He knew His responsibility and the heavy price he was going to pay. It overwhelmed Him (garden of Gethsemane) but He knew he had to do it with His life
  3. He was treated like a criminal, accused, flogged, bruised, beaten and sacrificed on the cross
  4. He died for mankind’s sin – he paid the price with His death so that we could live.

Therefore, that is why it is misconceived to call it a celebration. Because we cannot celebrate His death. We are the reason for a righteous man’s death. He died because of us. So do we equate it to the definition of celebration?

I would not call it that. The Lord’s table to me is a memorial. Why? Let me give you an example. In Australia, there is something called as an ANZAC day or taking India, it is called Vijay Diwas. They are on different dates. On that day, people of their countries come together to pay tribute to the soldiers who died so that we could be free and independent. The significance of the day is the sacrifice, the substitution these men and women did so that they could be free. There is no revelry, but proclamation with all humility and people pay their respects.

This day which they remember is finite and just a small token of freedom.

What Christ did was infinite. So shouldn’t the actual tone of worship of His table be with fear, awe, respect and dignity multiplied 100 fold at least? When you remember the price paid, do we celebrate or do we bow our heads with all humility, thank Him and bless him for continually pleading for us in front of our Maker?

This is my first point of the post. I don’t know wish another to and fro. Please have the introspection within yourself. If you wish to celebrate, please do over the victory that you have received over sin and death.

Will post the second point in the due course of time.

Regards,

Joe

 

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : rick   View Profile   Since : 11 May 2016 11:12:33 PM Close

Hopefully this post will resolve the dilemma caused in categorizing Lord’s Supper as ‘celebration’ or ‘remembrance’.  There is no question that it is remembrance of Lord’s death, which he wanted us to do.  However, remember if Satan knew that by Christ’s death redemption of man from the bondage of slavery would occur, (provided of course, it is contingent upon man’s repentance), he would never have entered Judas Iscariot’s mind to betray the Lord for crucifixion.  Alas, by betraying Jesus, the devil was fooled; and despite Lord’s sufferings, the purpose for which Lord came into this world was fulfilled.  The Lord never said to anybody to mourn over His death, but He said to mourn over the sin man has committed.

“Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted” (Matthew 5:4)

You keep repeating the Lord’s suffering; well it is good of course, but it finally puts down the faces of everyone with sorrow as if Lord’s death was a death of defeat.  Remember it pleased the Father to bruise Him; because reconciliation of man with God was necessary, and when that was achieved you remain still at the outer court of the Tabernacle, at the altar, still feeling sorry for the Lord’s death. Enter into most Holy place because the curtain in the Temple was already torn from top to bottom.

It is your awful experience that you describe Lord’s suffering more than how He really suffered! I saw the movie “Passion of Christ”, which was simply an exaggeration of His sufferings. You may start another thread showing His suffering according to your perception.

Your comparison with Australia’s events (ANZAC day) is still more appalling. The dead one did not rise there! Nonetheless, they were martyrs.  Do you mean Jesus was a martyr?  If Jesus died a similar death, His death would not have had any relevance to mankind’s redemption. Whole Christianity depends on His resurrection and His victory over death. You stop short of resurrection and pose long somber faces mourning over His death.  Of course, I had seen some believers keep saying “I am unworthy” even after being born-again. There is pooling of ignorance in exhortations sometimes. Age old tradition has corrupted the minds of many.

Quote:

  1. He instituted His table for all that were going to be redeemed
  2. He knew His responsibility and the heavy price he was going to pay. It overwhelmed Him (garden of Gethsemane) but He knew he had to do it with His life
  3. He was treated like a criminal, accused, flogged, bruised, beaten and sacrificed on the cross
  4. He died for mankind’s sin – he paid the price with His death so that we could live. Unquote

 

  1.  He instituted Lord's Supper to remember His death which was a celebration of victory
  2. Was his cry to the Father a complaint? He only felt how hard it was to pay His life but read this verse: “And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt”. (Matthew 26:39)
  3. Show me the scripture which says believers need repeatedly mention His sufferings.  Was He beaten up more than 40 stripes?
  4. That is fine.

Consider as to what the children of Israel did after their exodus from Egypt. Read Leviticus Chapter23, where there is a description of seven festivals, of which the first one was “Passover". I reiterate that "Lord's Supper" was a pattern after the  "Passover" festival, and in that feast there was a remembrance of their experience during the 10th plague.

Now come back to these points instead of dragging on "celebration" or "Remembrance":

You wrote: “Please note the word 'remembering' which is mentioned in the scripture in reference to the table (for which I can give multiple references from the scripture)”

Go ahead and post those multiple references (other than 1 Cor.11:25) which refer to the Lord’s table.

"After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me" (1 Corinthians 11:25). .

In your second paragraph you wrote about the church.  Notice what Paul writes in 2 Cor. 11:2

“For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:2)

Paul’s desire to present the church was a “chaste virgin”. You wrote “People make the church”.  People do not make the church but born-again people, who are justified as ‘righteous’ will make the church. When born-again believer falls and commits a sin, although his salvation is not lost, yet he is not in fellowship with the Lord as long as he returns to Him; and when he is in sin, he is not a part of that ‘bride’, who is ‘chaste virgin’. So the church is never imperfect.

You quoted Romans 16:5

“Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my well beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ”. (Romans 16:5)

What are you trying to communicate from that verse?

In your third paragraph you wrote:

Quote: “You do an introspection and then gather and have fellowship to break the Lord's table”

So, do you mean believers gather to have fellowship to break the Lord’s table. I think that is why some rowdies from that Church which you quoted flung the chairs.

What introspection do you make when you are at the Lord’s Supper?  Is it how you offended somebody, and if so, would you leave the place go and reconcile with him and come back and take part in the Lord’s Table.  Give me few examples as to what introspection you make.This is very important for this discussion.

In your 4th paragraph, you said I am lucky to be part a church not similar to that of some churches where you were part of and people flung chairs. The word ‘lucky’ cannot be used in Christendom. My salvation, the existence of the church, where I am part of, are not the products or the results of any luck. Continue and post some relationship between fellowship and Lord’s Supper; probably we can decipher what they are indeed.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 12 May 2016 3:23:48 AM Close

Hello

First of all, here again, the post which I have given is taken to another tangent. There are perceptions you have formed and then start dragging it.

1. You have used the word ‘mourn’. I used the word remember. When we remember the Lords death – please read what I have written about him being infinite. You can even refer to the earlier portion of what I spoke about regarding those days as memorials.

2. Instituted the table – to show/proclaim his death till he comes. Please read I Corinthians 11:24-29. There we are remembering Him and His death. You proclaim his death for it was for our sins. Then we remember his victory over sin by His resurrection

3. It overwhelmed him. Because of the heaviness of the worldly sin  for which he was going to pay the price. You have used the word ‘complain’ or implied, thinking I have. I have not.  I have implied correctly what he went through.

4. I have seen the Passion of Christ. It may/may not have been exaggerated. But are you denying the fact that Christ suffered and more to save mankind from sins? Romans 5:7-9-11 talks about what he has done. It is difficult for someone to pay the price for someone righteous. We were not righteous, and yet he died for our sins. Therefore, it was more.

5. The Lords table – Bread and Wine are his body and blood. When he gave it to the disciples it wasn’t a ‘figure of speech’or a ‘ritual’. The actual demonstration of His body broken and blood poured happened on the cross of Calvary. We gather together to remember his sufferings and death. They did not just arrest him and put him on the cross. He fulfilled the scriptures with the manner he was supposed to die. Some verses for your reference:

  • Luke 24: 25. 26
  • Acts 3:18
  • Acts 17: 2-3
  • Acts 26: 22-23
  • Hebrews 13:11-12
  • Isaiah 53: 3-12

Therefore, if you call it repeatedly remember his suffering at his Table. Yes. If you do not want to. That is your freedom.

6. Christ is the destroyer of the old temple and builder of the new one. (John 2:19). Passover and its commandments are based out of the old testament. And for Jews or people wanting to be a Jew. We remember the significance of Passover as a study. But with regards to the Lord’s table – there is no significance apart from the fact he instituted his salvation and redemption on that day and went to remove the shackles of the sin from us . After his death and resurrection, everything was closed. Everyone was one i.e. whoever that believes in Him. (Galatians 3:28)

I am done with these points and shall continue with the others in due time.

Regards,

Joe

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : rick   View Profile   Since : 12 May 2016 7:22:21 AM Close

You have drifted this discussion from the original intent to, perhaps, an irrecoverable situation. I was hoping that you would start another thread to discuss about the Lord’s sufferings, but you are dragging on peripherals that are not associated with the topic of the discussion.  You blamed me as if I have denied the sufferings of Jesus. I have not. What I was emphasizing was that some Christians exaggerate the actual happenings.  According to Jewish law, a criminal cannot be flogged or scourged more than 40 times. Paul mentions about his own sufferings when he was beaten up for 39 times one short of forty. That is five by the Jews in the Synagogue and 39 in the court of the Law. By exaggerating His sufferings you are nullifying the scriptures. The word used as ‘suffer’ or ‘sufferings’ in the case of Jesus was not to mean more than 40 stripes.

“Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee” (Deuteronomy 25:3)

“Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one” (2 Corinthians 11:24)

You say in the movie “Passion of Christ” there may or may not have been exaggeration. But I say it was fully an exaggeration to invite sympathy to a new level. This is what usually done during the Lord ’s Supper by various people in the Assembly while remembering the Lord’s death, and the resultant is the ‘mourning’ and not ‘remembering’.  You are not sure what the sufferings were, of the criminals who are subject to, in the criminal proceedings during the days of Jesus and Paul. There is no scripture to show that the Old Testament law was violated in the case of Jesus.

Quote: The Lords table – Bread and Wine are his body and blood. When he gave it to the disciples it wasn’t a ‘figure of speech’or a ‘ritual’. The actual demonstration of His body broken and blood poured happened on the cross of Calvary Unquote

Here again, it appears you believe in Roman Catholics’ Eucharist rather than “Lord’s Supper”. They believe in “Transubstantiation”, which is unscriptural. You should know that the emblems on the Lord’s Table do not turn to real body or blood of Christ, but they are just emblems. These emblems have more often than not have become idols for Christians just as the brass serpent lifted by Moses has become an idol for worshipping in the days of king Hezekiah. Refer 2 Kings 18:4

“He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan” (2 Kings 18:4)

Hezekiah rightly destroyed the brazen serpent calling it as “Nehushtan” (mere brass), because the children of Israel started burning incense to it.

All the references you quoted were, although from different authors/speakers pointed to the sufferings of Jesus, and I have denied His sufferings. I am denying the exaggeration of His sufferings that ignorant people proclaim.

Quote: Passover and its commandments are based out of the old testament. And for Jews or people wanting to be a Jew. We remember the significance of Passover as a study. But with regards to the Lord’s table – there is no significance apart from the fact he instituted his salvation and redemption on that day and went to remove the shackles of the sin from us. Unquote

You are terribly at fault by writing that Old Testament Passover and its commandments are of no significance now. They were shadows which were fulfilled in Jesus, and therefore, you cannot brush them aside. The death of Jesus on the cross was propitiation and only when a person confesses Jesus as Lord and believe in heart that God raised Him from the dead a man will come out of the shackles of the sin that he was under. It is not at the Lord’s Supper or by celebrating/remembering that a man comes out of the shackles of the sin. (Ref Rom.10:9-10)

Now come back to your original intent.

Why did you connect 1 John 4:20 and Ephesians 4-1-6 to relate to ‘Unworthy’ or “unworthily” mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:27

“Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:27)

What self-examination you make during the Lord’s Supper?

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 12 May 2016 8:32:59 AM Close

Again, here as people have stated – you need to read what you have written. I think people understand that you are confused and have gone on a tangent.

1.40 stripes minues are part of the OT and for the Jews. When it was transferred to the Roman judiciary, it is not necessary for them to uphold the customs and traditions here. Next, what tradition or laws of the Jews are you upholding? Is mocking and insulting a part of the punishment? Can you specify where in the OT that is there? Or even spitting? I don’t know what your logic is? Even the custom of releasing one prisoner is not a Jewish law. But a practice adopted by the Romans to keep the Jews at bay.  There are laws, in Christ’s case – there was blatant violation of that law.

2. Let’s stop this here. There is no exaggeration in the sufferings of the Lord. When a righteous man is punished for no rhyme or reason. And when realisation dawns, there is repentance. Here, it is the Lord – he was ever righteous and without sin. I never stated you don’t accept His sufferings. Maybe your comprehension of His suffering is different. The verses in Isaiah would give you the gravity of his suffering. He needed to suffer, he needed to be tortured, he needed to die. Because if He didn’t, for our sins, we would have suffered all this and from God.

3. Here with regards to the Lord’s table, you perpetuate that I have some Roman Catholicism beliefs. This only proves how you form perspective. This is an institution given by the Lord himself – he said – it is my body and my blood. You do it in remembrance of Him. When you meet, I said you remember the Lord and his body and blood that was shed. I really don’t know where you decipher and went into ‘Nehustan and all OT based examples’, there was no indication of any importance that revolved around some idolised worship apart from remembrance of the Lord.

4. I still state the Passover does not hold any significance to gentiles apart from the Lord laying His life and instituting His table. Even in the Acts of the Apostles when the message was spread to the gentiles, it was about Christ. Everything after Christ’s sacrifice and resurrection was only about the atonement for sin. Hence, the verse in Galatians. Even in the Acts of Apostles, there were people going about bringing Jewish laws and rituals for the Gentile believers, we know what the outcome was. As stated, the Passover is for study and understanding – it holds no significance for believers.

Now, hopefully later – I shall get to the other aspects.

Regards

Joe

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 12 May 2016 8:34:34 AM Close

Again, here as people have stated – you need to read what you have written. I think people understand that you are confused and have gone on a tangent.

1.40 stripes minus one are part of the OT and for the Jews. When it was transferred to the Roman judiciary, it is not necessary for them to uphold the customs and traditions here. Next, what tradition or laws of the Jews are you upholding? Is mocking and insulting a part of the punishment? Can you specify where in the OT that is there? Or even spitting? I don’t know what your logic is? Even the custom of releasing one prisoner is not a Jewish law. But a practice adopted by the Romans to keep the Jews at bay.  There are laws, in Christ’s case – there was blatant violation of that law.

2. Let’s stop this here. There is no exaggeration in the sufferings of the Lord. When a righteous man is punished for no rhyme or reason. And when realisation dawns, there is repentance. Here, it is the Lord – he was ever righteous and without sin. I never stated you don’t accept His sufferings. Maybe your comprehension of His suffering is different. The verses in Isaiah would give you the gravity of his suffering. He needed to suffer, he needed to be tortured, he needed to die. Because if He didn’t, for our sins, we would have suffered all this and from God.

3. Here with regards to the Lord’s table, you perpetuate that I have some Roman Catholicism beliefs. This only proves how you form perspective. This is an institution given by the Lord himself – he said – it is my body and my blood. You do it in remembrance of Him. When you meet, I said you remember the Lord and his body and blood that was shed. I really don’t know where you decipher and went into ‘Nehustan and all OT based examples’, there was no indication of any importance that revolved around some idolised worship apart from remembrance of the Lord.

4. I still state the Passover does not hold any significance to gentiles apart from the Lord laying His life and instituting His table. Even in the Acts of the Apostles when the message was spread to the gentiles, it was about Christ. Everything after Christ’s sacrifice and resurrection was about the atonement for sin and salvation. Hence, the verse in Galatians. Even in the Acts of Apostles, there were people going about bringing Jewish laws and rituals for the Gentile believers, we know what the outcome was. As stated, the Passover is for study and understanding – it holds no significance for believers.

Now, hopefully later – I shall get to the other aspects.

Regards

Joe

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : rick   View Profile   Since : 12 May 2016 10:59:46 AM Close

Now I know you belong to people, who believe that Romans and Roman Judiciary was only responsible for crucifying Jesus, and not Jews. But apart from your perception Peter says…

“Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord “always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved”(Acts 2:22-25)

Let us read John 19:6-16.  Words emboldened are for emphasis.

When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him. The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid; And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer. Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar. When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away. (John 19:6-16)

Roman Government under Pilate could not do anything beyond what Jews desired and violating Jewish laws, lest Jews could lodge complaint with Caesar and have him removed from his office.  Pilate declared Jesus innocent, nevertheless he yielded to the cry of Jews who said “"CRUCIFY HIM! CRUCIFY HIM!" 

There were no legal charges proved against Jesus.  Herod also could not find any fault in Him that would contribute to charge Him under treason. When Pilate handed over Jesus for crucifixion, he did not allow the Law of Moses to be violated despite Pilate being gentile. He has even conceded to the request of Jews that the Lord’s tomb be sealed. If anyone had mocked Him or beaten Him more than 40 stripes it was his choice and there is no proof in the Bible that the Lord was beaten up more than 40 stripes. His legs were not broken to fulfill the prophecy. Everything was under the control of the Father and it pleased the Father to bruise Him.  No where we find that Jesus did anything out of the will of the Father. There is no point in exaggerating any of His sufferings except remembering the factual.

As for spitting and mocking, read how God chastised Miriam

“And the LORD said unto Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed seven days? let her be shut out from the camp seven days, and after that let her be received in again” (Numbers 12:14)

I would not like to go into details of it. In the case of Jesus it was a prophecy fulfilled.  To say that Passover has no significance for New Testament believer is to deny the prophecies of the Old Testament and the shadows and types mentioned in the Old Testament.

“I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting” (Isaiah 50:6)

We have reached uncompromising situation.

Quote: Now, hopefully later – I shall get to the other aspects. Unquote

Go ahead. I will wait till you come back to the original intent of this thread.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 14 May 2016 11:13:31 AM Close

Hello,

I cannot do anything about people forming perceptions about someone. As stated, in my first post - Let us not judge or make stark statement and let us not get into mindless arguments on who knows what and who is the master of all the languages or the word of God in all the languages. Even after some reminding them to go through it again.

In none of my post did I mention or indicate that ONLY the Romans were responsible for the Christ’s death. That is your judgement.

What I did say was when you harped on 40 minus one according to the Law of the Jews. It was not mandatory for the Romans the traditions of punishment which is commanded by the Jewish Law.  And in the scriptures, they did everything contrary to the punishment of an accused. Some points for your reference:

  1. They brought false witnesses
  2. They spat at him, beat him and commanded him to prophecy
  3. High priest tore his clothes

This is not punishment, but the highest form of insult, mockery and torture. Neither can one justify their stance. Because it is the same set of people who told Christ – that they are not slaves to no one – when the entire history of the Israelites has been built on their disobedience and slavery.

I don’t want to go into the details of what the Romans did. You know of the same.  But they had their part as well.

You have only proved my point. Of course, neither the Jews or Romans could do anything apart from following the Plan of God. I don’t know how you can say that they Jews could ‘complain’ to Casear, when during that period of time – the Romans were only looking for a reason to subjugate the place. I think you would see that in the scripture of their priest’s fear. They even used that when they shouted to Pilate that he is no friend of Caesar in John 19:12, so that they can have their peace driven by Pilate’s fear. To understand why they had peace – you need to through the history of that time. Pilate gave in, because he feared a turmoil would start in a place known for unrest. He will lose his position. He was human after all. Incompetency and ill administration was dealt with swiftly by the Romans. He didn’t understand the plan of God at work. Even when his wife warned him. It was all in the workings of the Creator for it to happen.

You can say he was not tortured beyond 40 stripes or I can say he was. The point being, torture of a righteous man is extremely cruel whether it is physical or mental. Torture need not be only of breaking of the bones. There are many ways it could be inflicted. Going through a guide on how Romans treated prisoners would give us this perspective.

There is no relevance of the context of Miriam to the Lord.  Miriam was punished for rebellion, pride and standing against God’s servant Moses. Whereas the Lord being righteous was punished for no cause apart from the fact that He had to die for our sins.

I will repeat what I said. Passover and its significance can be taken as a study. It can be used by people to build context. It is not mandatory when one comes to faith or wishes to partake in the Lord’s table they need to know what the ‘Passover’ is.  We are bearers and followers of the new covenant and testament. Will you stop someone from partaking in His table because he didn’t know what the Passover meant, its significance or its shadow of things that have passed?

Mathew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

When we come to the table, that is what we remember. Blood in His context was only shed because of the torture he had endured and then on the cross so that he could be the propitiation of all our sins. The table only holds siginificance because His sacrifice and our redemption.

I John 2:2 - And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Yes, we have reached an impasse. Let each one of us work out our own understanding of the matter.

Regards,

Joe

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 14 May 2016 11:16:53 AM Close

Hello,

I cannot do anything about people forming perceptions about someone. As stated, in my first post - Let us not judge or make a stark statement and let us not get into mindless arguments on who knows what and who is the master of all the languages or the word of God in all the languages.

Even after some reminding them to go through it again.

In none of my post did I mention or indicate that ONLY the Romans were responsible for the Christ’s death. That is your judgement.

What I did say was when you harped on 40 minuses one according to the Law of the Jews. It was not mandatory for the Romans the traditions of punishment which is commanded by the Jewish Law.  And in the scriptures, they did everything contrary to the punishment of an accused. Some points for your reference:

  1. They brought false witnesses
  2. They spat at him, beat him and commanded him to prophecy
  3. High priest tore his clothes

This is not punishment, but the highest form of insult, mockery, and torture. Neither can one justify their stance. Because it is the same set of people who told Christ – that they are not slaves to no one – when the entire history of the Israelites has been built on their disobedience and slavery.

I don’t want to go into the details of what the Romans did. You know of the same.  But they had their part as well.

You have only proved my point. Of course, neither the Jews or Romans could do anything apart from following the Plan of God. I don’t know how you can say that they Jews could ‘complain’ to Caesar, when during that period of time – the Romans were only looking for a reason to subjugate the place. I think you would see that in the scripture of their Priest’s fear. Also, they even used that when they shouted to Pilate that he is no friend of Caesar as in John 19:12 so that they can have their peace. All this was driven by Pilate’s fear. To understand why they had peace – you need to through the history of that time. Pilate gave in because he feared a turmoil would start in a place known for unrest. He will lose his position. He was human after all. Incompetency and ill administration were dealt with swiftly by the Romans. He didn’t understand the plan of God at work. Even when his wife warned him. It was all the workings of the Creator for it to happen.

You can say he was not tortured beyond 40 stripes or I can say he was. The point being, torture of a righteous man is extremely cruel whether it is physical or mental. Torture need not be only of the breaking of the bones. There are many ways it could be inflicted. Going through a guide on how Romans treated prisoners would give us this perspective. You see that in Isaiah what all he had to undergo.

There is no relevance of the context of Miriam to the Lord.  Miriam was punished for rebellion, pride, and standing against God’s servant Moses. Whereas the Lord being righteous was punished for no cause apart from the fact that He had to die for our sins.

I will repeat what I said. Passover and its significance can be taken as a study. It can be used by people to build context. It is not mandatory when one comes to faith or wishes to partake in the Lord’s table they need to know what the ‘Passover’ is.  We are bearers and followers of the new covenant and testament. Will you stop someone from partaking in His table because he didn’t know what the Passover meant, its significance or its shadow of things that have passed?

Mathew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

When we come to the table, that is what we remember. Blood in His context was only shed because of the torture he had endured and then on the cross so that he could be the propitiation of all our sins.

I John 2:2 - And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Yes, we have reached an impasse. Let each one of us work out or own understanding of the matter.

Regards,

Joe

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 14 May 2016 11:18:06 AM Close

Hello,

I cannot do anything about people forming perceptions about someone. As stated, in my first post - Let us not judge or make a stark statement and let us not get into mindless arguments on who knows what and who is the master of all the languages or the word of God in all the languages.

Even after some reminding them to go through it again.

In none of my post did I mention or indicate that ONLY the Romans were responsible for the Christ’s death. That is your judgement.

What I did say was when you harped on 40 minuses one according to the Law of the Jews. It was not mandatory for the Romans the traditions of punishment which is commanded by the Jewish Law.  And in the scriptures, they did everything contrary to the punishment of an accused. Some points for your reference:

  1. They brought false witnesses
  2. They spat at him, beat him and commanded him to prophecy
  3. High priest tore his clothes

This is not punishment, but the highest form of insult, mockery, and torture. Neither can one justify their stance. Because it is the same set of people who told Christ – that they are not slaves to no one – when the entire history of the Israelites has been built on their disobedience and slavery.

I don’t want to go into the details of what the Romans did. You know of the same.  But they had their part as well.

You have only proved my point. Of course, neither the Jews or Romans could do anything apart from following the Plan of God. I don’t know how you can say that they Jews could ‘complain’ to Caesar, when during that period of time – the Romans were only looking for a reason to subjugate the place. I think you would see that in the scripture of their Priest’s fear. Also, they even used that when they shouted to Pilate that he is no friend of Caesar as in John 19:12 so that they can have their peace. All this was driven by Pilate’s fear. To understand why they had peace – you need to through the history of that time. Pilate gave in because he feared a turmoil would start in a place known for unrest. He will lose his position. He was human after all. Incompetency and ill administration were dealt with swiftly by the Romans. He didn’t understand the plan of God at work. Even when his wife warned him. It was all the workings of the Creator for it to happen.

You can say he was not tortured beyond 40 stripes or I can say he was. The point being, torture of a righteous man is extremely cruel whether it is physical or mental. Torture need not be only of the breaking of the bones. There are many ways it could be inflicted. Going through a guide on how Romans treated prisoners would give us this perspective. You see that in Isaiah what all he had to undergo.

There is no relevance of the context of Miriam to the Lord.  Miriam was punished for rebellion, pride, and standing against God’s servant Moses. Whereas the Lord being righteous was punished for no cause apart from the fact that He had to die for our sins.

I will repeat what I said. Passover and its significance can be taken as a study. It can be used by people to build context. It is not mandatory when one comes to faith or wishes to partake in the Lord’s table they need to know what the ‘Passover’ is.  We are bearers and followers of the new covenant and testament. Will you stop someone from partaking in His table because he didn’t know what the Passover meant, its significance or its shadow of things that have passed?

Mathew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

When we come to the table, that is what we remember. Blood in His context was only shed because of the torture he had endured and then on the cross so that he could be the propitiation of all our sins.

I John 2:2 - And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Yes, we have reached an impasse. Let each one of us work out or own understanding of the matter.

Regards,

Joe

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : rick   View Profile   Since : 14 May 2016 9:30:01 PM Close

Hello, Hello!

By this discussion I do not want to undermine the sufferings of Lord Jesus Christ.  The way you diverted this topic seems to me that you have deliberately done it so,  in order to avoid dwelling on the main issue you have raised in your first post. You have done it in spite of my pointing out and asking you to start another thread if necessary to discuss about the sufferings of Jesus Christ.

You seem to be master in changing your tongue and word.  You wrote:

“Is mocking and insulting a part of the punishment? Can you specify where in the OT that is there? Or even spitting?”

When I posted the reference about God’s punishment on Miriam you said it was because of her rebellion. It was truly against her rebellion, but your challenge was not to show if anyone innocent was punished with mocking or spitting in the Old Testament, but if ever anyone had spit or mocked anyone in the Old Testament. Do you know Pilate considered him innocent but Jews considered Jesus as a rebel saying Jesus blasphemed calling Himself as the "Son of God"? You have no logic no proper understanding. You keep on drifting issue.

You have no basic idea how feeble and spineless Roman Government was during Jesus Chris’s time.

You say: “I don’t know how you can say that they Jews could ‘complain’ to Casear, when during that period of time” and in the same tone you also say:

“They even used that when they shouted to Pilate that he is no friend of Caesar in John 19:12, so that they can have their peace driven by Pilate’s fear” You answer your own questions and still drag the discussion.

You wrote: “To understand why they had peace – you need to through the history of that time”. The next line you say:

“Pilate gave in, because he feared a turmoil would start in a place known for unrest. He will lose his position. He was human after all”.

And next you contradict yourself saying:

“Incompetency and ill administration was dealt with swiftly by the Romans”

Romans had no tact. The prevalence of inefficiency in their ranks was great. In addition, there was famine and internal quarrels. That is the reason why Jews were not content with them, and there was a rebellion in Judaea. It was only after 66 AD that Roman Government gained strength and crushed the rebellion of Jews and subsequent events led to the destruction of the temple in AD 70. The punishment Jews suffered was because of their own calling of the consequences of crucifying Jesus.

"Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children". (Matthew 27:25

How could you say that more than 40 stripes were inflicted on Jesus, who was a Jew and when Pilate yielded to every demand of Jews during His crucifixion. Even though Pharisees and other Jewish community wanted Jesus to be crucified they were meticulous in observing the Mosaic Law.

It is mere foolishness to say that “…Passover and its significance can be taken as a study. It can be used by people to build context. It is not mandatory when one comes to faith or wishes to partake in the Lord’s table they need to know what the ‘Passover’ is.”

You should read and clearly understand the context in Luke 22:14-20 to understand the relevance of Passover and the institution of “Lord’s Supper” after the pattern of Passover, to understand the relevance of Passover. It seems to you Old Testament has no relevance. You cannot understand New Testament fully unless you understand Old Testament. New Testament has not fallen straight from heaven but it was a constant emergence from the Old Testament.

“And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:  For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you”. (Luke 22:14-20)

Now coming back to you main concern, let me ask you few questions. Do not repeat or write any more of the sufferings of Jesus, because you admitted that we have reached an impasse; and so be it. Discuss about “unworthily” used in 1 Corinthians 11:27

“Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11:27)

Answer these questions. What if someone in the assembly lusts after a woman just before taking part in the Lord’s Supper, or covets something of others wrongfully before taking part in the Lord’s Supper. Should he avoid taking part in the Lord’s Table and go ask forgiveness from the woman, and till the issue is resolved or the issue of covetousness is resolved one should not take part in the Lord’s Supper?

I hope you know that the second commandments Jesus gave was to love your neighbor as yourself.

“And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these” (Mark 12:31)

That second commandment has the aspects mentioned in Galatians 5:22-23

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law” (Galatians 5:22-23)

You picked up only love while quoting 1 John 4:20 in your post. Is that the only one attribute you considered as necessary to participate or not participate in the Lord’s Supper? What about “peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance”.  If you meticulously followed all these fruits of the spirit all the time you are really exceptional. Or if you have violated them any time you may have resolved the issue with offended ones. I am still waiting for you to give me reply as to what self-examination you make during Lord’s Supper and do you not really take part in the Lord’s Supper till you settle the issues with those whom you have offended, or do you say you are super exceptional that you never offended anyone any time. With your “Hello” attitude, I think you were at least few times not at peace with your neighbors or friends, and if you did not reconcile each time, it disqualifies you, according your own inference, from participating in the Lord’s Table until you reconcile. You need observance of Matthew 18 principle more than anybody else, on this board or elsewhere. You considered writings of at aleast one another person on this forum as "mindless" otherwise you would not have used that word in the first post and repeated it later.

By the way do not post two or three times the same post. I do not have time to go through same matter three times.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 15 May 2016 11:37:15 AM Close

Hello,

You say I am the master of tongue and word whereas from the very post first itself you have been diverting and dragging the topic by confusing with quote unquote.

You still have not explained the relevance of associating the judgement of Miriam and Jesus. When you do a comparison, you need to provide the logic. You fail to do so. If someone does something that bears to shame. Then there is judgement, maybe they spit upon or disgraced. In Christ case, there is no association of shame or reproach for the person to be spat upon. According to the priest, he ‘blasphemed’.  You say the Pilate considered Him innocent. For that matter, even Herod considered Him innocent. So what’s your point? Was He not still flogged, beaten or tortured? Was renting His garments and placing the throne crown a part of the ‘Mosaic law’, well the Roman soldiers did it. I don’t see anywhere in the NT, where the Jewish people stopping it and saying – Hey follow our method of torture and death! The normal practice of putting someone to death as per the law is stoning the person to death. I don’t see that happening. Let’s not indulge on what they followed or did not follow. The point is - But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)  

I didn’t contradict. That is why I wrote that it was a place of unrest. When Pilate took over the Roman administration. They could not do with any Jewish uprising. If Pilate failed to curb the unrest. He would have lost his position, his title and maybe his life. The Roman administration irrespective of internal conflict still had the bandwidth to curb any uprising that the Jews put forward. Please go through a tree of Roman emperors and see who the emperor was. He was Tiberius Caesar and had a ‘particular fondness’ for Jews. Here again, it wouldn’t have happened till the purpose of the Lord was met. If you have any contention on this, then you know a different history than I do.

You say Pilate yielded to all the whims and fancies of the Jews. But did you know that he put the sign ‘King of Jews’ on Christ’s crucifix which was contradictory to their demands? And when they argued, said ‘what I have written, I have written’. His only reason for giving to their demand is because the eternal God willed it. If God didn’t will it. Then 10 legions of angels would have smitten the earth into damnation.

The final address of your point. Passover. When you talk to unbelievers about Jesus Christ. Do you start with the Passover and its significance? Or do you talk about Christ? I clearly stated it is a matter of study. But as put it, is not a matter of so much significance that a believer has to know it to be saved or partake in the table. Even today, when missionary work is being done – the first aspect always – even during age old times has been to share the New Testament by word or print.  Then once the person shows his/her inquisitiveness to know more – he/she is given the OT as well and he/she expands his/her wisdom. But the point is -there are thousands of believers today around the world who do not know what the Passover is or who have not read the Old Testament. Thousands that spread the word of God only based on the New Testament. So are you telling me - they don’t understand the New Testament fully? Or that they are weak because they don’t know what the Passover is? I am sure you will come back to me and ask to show me who they are. If you are in this forum and know of the ministries that happen. You wouldn’t need to. But if you do. I think you need to check with the brethren who worship at your church.

This is officially finished from my end. I do not expect you to be silent. You can repeatedly say I am repeating, I does not matter.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the other aspects which are the Lord’s table –

Your first question shows the level of the immorality of thought one can have. When one goes for worship and remember the Lord, if the spirit actually resides in him. His/Her aspiration is providing his body as living sacrifice to the Lord (Ref: Romans 12:1-2). Do note, this is not only during worship or the Lords table. But at every point of his/her existence on earth. To even lust at a woman at church, covet and for you to put such a thought gives me a different perspective which takes you far away before you even reach the table.  As you love referring to the OT. Then you have broken two things – adultery (evolved by Christ in the NT) and covetousness. Now you take a call on what needs to be done. Leave that, I am sure you will call this a ‘figure of speech’. But what did Christ say about if somebody’s body part causes you to sin or if you become a stumbling block for someone? If we take that into consideration, and look ‘NT guidelines of a believer’, Then the point here is if that person is a believer or not. Otherwise, if he/she is partaking in it. Judgement from God would be evident on him/her. Even then – God was merciful. If that was in their past. Not in their present or future – Ref: I Corinthians 6:9-11. Now the matter or self-examination. Is it wrong for the brother/sister to go and confess their sin among one another? Firstly, such thoughts should not arise. And if it does they need to confess and pray about it (Ref: James 5:16). The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much (next verse). And it is all about repentance. But also not repeating it. I am sure this would be difficult for you to digest.

If you say your church is perfect, people are not. Which church are you talking about? The church which I know of is made of Christ as its head and believers as its body (Ref: Ephesians 1:22-23). Christ with believers makes the church. So long as there are people in the church who are still in the flesh. There are bound to be differences, weaknesses, and problems. Does not mean that it is not a church. It still is. After all, it is derived from a Greek word which also means assembly.  Apart from your own daily meditation, devotionals and praises to God, you come together to do the same (ref: Colossians 3:16). You do as an assembly/church. You participate in the Lords table at the assembly, not individually. You might say you can do it as an individual person. Then you take Mathew 18:30 for guidance. It is not necessary for everyone to be perfect when they come to attend the Lords table. Provided they are willing are able to put their introspection into practice. But this only happens when the spirit moves them and believers who are strong guides them. You cannot call the churches on earth perfect. If it was, then there was no need for the scriptures. That church is in heaven with the Lord. We are still being built. All the apostles are writing it to the believers who gather in a church. Because if the believers are not there, then there is no church. Satan through unbelievers can also infiltrate the church (E.g. All the topics which the apostles talk in the epistles). But if the foundation is in Christ. God knows how to protect it (ref: Mathew 16:18). In addition to this, read what the angels talk about the seven churches in Revelation. They were not perfect. The level of degradation started from the first and got complete in the last.   You referred: For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. (I Cor 11:2) – Please note Paul’s tense. That he may. Which means future. That means the building of the church is still not complete. Only the foundation (Ephesians 2:20). It is still being built. More about the aspects of the assembly was written by George Koshy. I admit I have not read them. Maybe you could refer to them.

All the fruits which are spoken about by Paul are also conclusively written using the power of Love. If you think all the fruits don’t come from Love. Then you don’t understand the power of Love. For your reference. 1 Corinthians 13. I think you will find all the fruits in that chapter as well. I believe you are a person who must sincerely love some people. Irrespective of how angry you get, you are willing to go to any extent to make peace with them. You quoted from the scriptures. Love your neighbours. I also quote from the scriptures: Love your enemies. I would also say Love everyone. And with believers, really earnestly (Ref: 1 Peter 4:8). It has the power to even wash your sins. I don’t think patience, meekness, forbearance etc. will wash your sins.

Now with regards to me offending people – Thankfully and by God’s grace in the churches I have attended over the past 33 years. I am yet to offend anyone. If I have offended anyone at my workplace or even on the road for that matter. I have reconciled. If I have not, I have not taken part in the Lord’s table. But some way or other the opportunity to reconcile has come.  Again, by God’s grace, I have a simple life, where I don’t indulge in things that could make me offensive to people. Especially to unbelievers.  I don’t think it is something exceptional. That would undermine the power of God. Everyone in God’s sight is to be exceptional as we are imitators of Christ. Now, with regards to the people here in KB. My intention is never to offend or to get offended. If I did get offended, I could have been slanderous. It’s not that I choose not, I am not. If I offended or even made a mistake – I have rectified it by seeking apology (in one post). I have done my part in all sincerity. Now whether it is forgiven by that person. It is up to them and their relation with the Lord. These are not my inferences but practical application. Another aspect I have noticed is the condescending and judgemental tone you perpetually use. I at least use a greeting called ‘Hello’, whereas I don’t see any sort of greeting apart from start ‘confuse+ random verses+ I don’t have time to go through the matter two three times’. For your information, nobody asks you to. If you don’t want to answer or respond, why do you do it? This is a forum for discussion. A topic can be repeated 100 times if the person wishes to. If you do not wish to participate, please avoid. Nobody can hold anything against you.

When I say ‘mindless arguments’, I know you are not a recent member of KB. Please refer to the earlier discussions (some months/years back). I even looked at the archives and found a lot of hilariously pointless discussions that people have had. My intention was to avoid all that. If you don’t understand that – then I cannot help you.

Lastly, I never said or implied that the elders of the church should stop them from participating. If the church is aware of some disparities. And as a cause of concern for that brother or sister, they can admonish and warn them in all gentleness. It might not happen at the Lords table. It could happen before or later so that they don’t repeat it till they are on the right. There is a reason then why it is a fellowship that comes to participate in the Lord’s table. Fellowship does not end there. It is till you die.

To end this discussion this is what it means if one brother/sister has to do it for a brother/sister before he participates in the Lord’s table or in any ministries.  If it is done with all humbleness and understanding. The Lord works in all of us.

Galatians 6: 1-10

Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For every man shall bear his own burden. Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

As much as you say Mathew 18 is applicable to me, it is applicable to everyone. I would state here – if you think I am being offensive to you (which I am not). I still apologise in the name of the Lord.  I have concluded my thoughts on this topic and shall start with another one at a later point in time.  

Regards,

Joe

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : rick   View Profile   Since : 16 May 2016 1:52:29 AM Close

Hello, Hello,

My replies are in bold letters.

A topic can be repeated 100 times if the person wishes to”

You may post 100 times same topic, but posting the same matter repeatedly and retaining extra posts there, is ugly behavior. You posted on  12 May 2016 08:32:59 and on: 12 May 2016 08:34:34 same matter. Likewise, you posted a reply on 14 May 2016 11:13:31 and repeated it twice more immediately. That is what I mentioned.  If you cannot understand, I cannot help it.

When I quoted hypothetical question about immoral thoughts that may come before taking part in the Lord’s Table, I have to say that it is not uncommon among believers to fall to such level any time, besides Sunday worship service. I have heard, (not in my church, of course), in Churches that I have visited, testimonies from believers, who said they were addicted to pornography, and such thoughts do not leave their minds. They said such thoughts also come up before they take part in Lord's Table. Remember no sin is greater than the other. Every kind of sin is equal before God.

When the Lord used words, such as in Matthew 5:30, they were really “figure of speech” and not literal.

“And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell” (Matthew 5:30)

Some people have, unfortunately, taken them as literal and mutilated their organs. One of the early church fathers, Origen castrated himself thinking that those words should be taken literally. Mutilation of organs may serve externally, but cannot stop evil thoughts that come in mind. You are underestimating Satan and his power.  You may be belonging to angelic world, perhaps, that such thoughts never came into your mind, and you always reconciled before you took part in the Lord’s Table.  That is why I infered at some point that you are exceptional.  Surprisingly, you said in the same post that “It is not necessary for everyone to be perfect when they come to attend the Lords table. Provided they are willing are able to put their introspection into practice. But this only happens when the spirit moves them and believers who are strong guides them”.  And, about introspection, you never mentioned as to what you do in your self-examination and how you resolve it.

Are you not master in changing your words and tongue? Read what you wrote knowingly or inadvertently,

“Lastly, I never said or implied that the elders of the church should stop them from participating. If the church is aware of some disparities. And as a cause of concern for that brother or sister, they can admonish and warn them in all gentleness. It might not happen at the Lords table. It could happen before or later so that they don’t repeat it till they are on the right. There is a reason then why it is a fellowship that comes to participate in the Lord’s table. Fellowship does not end there. It is till you die”

Again, here it contradicts your first post, where you sought discussion on three points knowing pretty well that church is not responsible for errors of individuals.  I am not confused on your first post. You had some wild thoughts already in your mind and tried to put others to test.

This is the caption of this thread: “# 08064 :  Breaking of the bread - Part 2”

Later you wrote: “The topic of discussion is: What do people today deem as ‘unworthily’?”

Then, you went on saying “In many assemblies, brethren across the world gather to together to remember the Lord, his sufferings and his great sacrifice. We are supposed to demonstrate the eternal love of God to everyone. But in many instances, people in the church break bread even though they themselves have issues with one another. My question here is:

  1. Why is this deemed acceptable? And how does one who has the spirit of God allow this?
  2. What is the role of the church here? If the church is corruptible, what should one ideally in this circumstance do?
  3. Should the church, which is aware of such situations even allow the breaking of the bread?

You have not explained what you meant by “We are supposed to demonstrate the eternal love of God to everyone” until now.

When you wrote “Why is this deemed acceptable? And how does one who has the spirit of God allow this?

You already had some thought in your mind, which you did not reveal but asked the forum “why is this deemed acceptable?”  Crookedness or ignorance that you brought subsequently 1 Corinthians 11:27 into discussion and went on Ephesians 4:1-6?

Now, you say: ““It is not necessary for everyone to be perfect when they come to attend the Lords table. Provided they are willing are able to put their introspection into practice. But this only happens when the spirit moves them and believers who are strong guides them”.

At some point you also said

You might say you can do it as an individual person. Then you take Mathew 18:30 for guidance” 

I don’t know what you meant by this and why you quoted Matthew 18:30.  Your posts are filled with random verses that cannot be connected to the Lord’s Table

“And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. (Matthew 18:30)

On 10 May 2016 04:00:45  You wrote “People make the church. Only one example: Romans 16:5, you can refer to it”

Until now you have not explained why you quoted this verse.

And when his disciples were come to the other side, they had forgotten to take bread. (Matthew 16:5)

You are confusing and filled with arrogance of controlling others, and say if I wish not I need not participate. It is mere waste of time to respond to you and I will not do in future. Well, keep going. All the best!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 16 May 2016 6:31:09 AM Close
  1. You have proved you not read what I had written in my two posts on 12th May, 2016 and also 14th May 2016. If you say they are repetition - then likewise you have also repeated your arguments on the 12th and the 14th of May, 2016. 
  2. There is nothing contradictory. You make statements that the 'church is perfect' and Passover is  very important for every believer. I never had any wild thoughts. It was a discussion because evidently lot of people have observed the same. You hae pinpointed points (without reading the entire sentence or paragraph) in my dicussion and then started using it. You are the one who made judgemental and condescending statements; Proof in points:
  • If you have excuse that “I am unworthy to take part in Lord’s supper because I am loggerheads with my brother, I must wait until I become worthy” you will never be able to take part in the Lord’s supper in your life-time.
  • You built constraints for your sake and you follow them for your good or bad. Do not teach others your doctrines. There is no other expression in the Bible than the word “unworthy” or “unworthily” has created troubles and confusion in the minds of weak believers, and you seem sure to be one such troubled man. 
  • You are terribly at fault by writing that Old Testament Passover and its commandments are of no significance now.
  • Now I know you belong to people, who believe that Romans and Roman Judiciary was only responsible for crucifying Jesus, and not Jews.
  • You seem to be master in changing your tongue and word.
  •  With your “Hello” attitude, I think you were at least few times not at peace with your neighbors or friends, and if you did not reconcile each time, it disqualifies you, according your own inference, from participating in the Lord’s Table until you reconcile. You need observance of Matthew 18 principle more than anybody else, on this board or elsewhere. 
  • You already had some thought in your mind, which you did not reveal but asked the forum “why is this deemed acceptable?”  Crookedness or ignorance that you brought subsequently 1 Corinthians 11:27 into discussion and went on Ephesians 4:1-6?
  • You are confusing and filled with arrogance of controlling others, and say if I wish not I need not participate. It is mere waste of time to respond to you and I will not do in future. Well, keep going. All the best!

I can take your condescending attitude based statements in various other places in the forum and prove it more to you. This is not only in my discussions. But then you will say I am controlling. I never controlled any thought or expression. I infact have agreed and was in tune with the other participants till you came alone. If you dont understand what I have taken and based my verses and sentences

  1. You do not read my posts in entirety. for e.g. you say Mathew 18:30 is random. Did you read the entire paragraph or did you decide I will read one sentence and then start typing?
  2. You went into a tangent of mutiliation and of course as i deemed went with the statement of a figure of speech. You have not read the entire paragraph but chose to randomly asssert some history you know of. I dont know or really care who Origen was - And there is nothing called as a early church father for believers. Again - you have scripturally wrong. Even the disciples refused to get called fathers. 
  3. You state you heard in other assemblies but not your own. Therefore then you are truly 'lucky' because in one earlier post as you said your church is perfect. (My Church is perfect. Individuals in the Church ~I think you are talking about some other church here because of the fullstop~ are fallibles, and restored by the Lord when they come in repentance.) Or you are talking about the building you go in which has some real great architectural work. Even though in all the epistles and revelations there is nothing in the past, present of the perfect church on earth and it never spoke about some building apart from Christ and his people. You are not one bit appreciative that the believer is repentant of his thoughts and needs help. Your whole intention even to talk about it is to pass judgement. When I said people make the church. Of course, the assumption is that believers make the church. Not people from the fish or vegetable market. You just stressed on the point of belivers and born again just to prove your point. For your information, I explained people make the church in my last post. Did you conveniently not read it?
  4. I dont need to reveal what i do for self examination to you. I have shared enough in all my posts.If you think that is mystical and exceptional. Thank you. though I think since you belong to a church which is perfect all of it more or less applies to you more than me.  Just one point  - the only thing you have shared is that "I am Rick, I start without any greeting, and end with some judgemental statement. Sometimes in between. 

Not participating anymore in the discussion is your choice. Thank you for your choice.  I have made the conditions of participation in topics of my forum pretty clear. It is better. All the best. If you do respond to this, I will respond back. 

Regards,

Joe

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : abic   View Profile   Since : 16 May 2016 12:36:14 PM Close

paulthomas1   
Hope you read my initial couple of posts where I have briefed the scenario. Several members in a Church got offended by one brother. They all talked to him privately. Since there was no change, they talked to him as a group as multiple witnesses. Then it’s been brought to the attention of elders. The elders met with him and discussed matter multiple time. Finally they asked him to abstain from Lord’s Supper till he reconcile with the rest. He comes to the Church and is still part of the congregation except partaking in Lord’s Supper. How long this can go? If he is not reconciling what to do? How do you take him out of the Church? Sure, you can tell him don’t come to the Church. Sunday morning when you all get together and if he walk in, what will you and the Church that you are associated will do? Take him out by force? I honestly don’t know and that’s why I commented about the practical difficulty here. Appreciate your thoguths

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 16 May 2016 3:13:22 PM Close

Dear abic,

Let me make few comments in relation to your questions to Paul Thomas.

1.       Let the elders sit down with the person and explain the process that they have followed as it outlined in Matthew 18.

2.       Let the elders inform the person that they have come to the point of informing the church that they followed all these steps and the only step that is left is to consider this person as an ‘outsider’ to the church. This means that the elders would announce in the official capacity that this particular person is under discipline as prescribed in Matthew 18. This is where the promise we see in Matthew 18 come in as a strong support to the elders & the church as a whole.

18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

19 “Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven.20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

3.       In the church settings, the rest of the congregation is not free to offer the same hospitality or welcome as they would give to other believers. But outside the church setting he should be treated just as any other outsider with respect and graciousness with the hope of winning him back.

4.       If the person still comes in to the meeting or even forcing himself to partake of the bread and the cup, my suggestion would be not to take any more actions. He is under condemnation and God will institute His discipline as we see in 1 Cor 11.  For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s[f] body.30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.

5.       1 Cor 11 warning should be intimated to the person when he is initially put under discipline so that he is aware of the potential of receiving chastisement for the Lord.

6.       I believe the church should now wait for the Lord and continue seeking the will of God and pursue the God -given responsibilities, instead of being caught up with this distraction. Wait for the Lord! Let Him implement the promises of Matthew 18: 18-20. 

Tom Johns

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 16 May 2016 4:08:35 PM Close

Hi Tom Johns,

Just to be a little bit more inquisitive and to drive the point further.

Yes I agree with you. Now if you can ponder on one question:

What about the ones who are new or maybe, weak in faith who sees all this and who are participating in it?

My forum was about the environment. Because Mathew 18, is very powerful in terms of what the outlines are. If they still partake, would it not make the church responsible for misguidance? I am only asking.

Regards,

Joe. 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 17 May 2016 5:18:57 PM Close

Joe, 

What do you mean by 'participating in?' - Can you explain it further? 

Tom J

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 18 May 2016 3:00:35 AM Close

Hi Tom,

The ones who are new and started participating in the Lord's table. For better clarity, someone who has come recently come to the faith from other denomiation or religion.

Regards, 

Joe

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 19 May 2016 2:33:56 AM Close

Joe,

Thank you for the clarification. I can empathize with the dilemma you may be facing. There are no really good solutions to all these issues. But if you explain to the newer believer that you are following the scriptural steps of proper discipline in regard to a difficult situation, he or she might be truly appreciative of your faithful adherence to the scriptural mandates. And a visible and genuine burden towards the wayward brother could send a stronger signal to the new believer about the seriousness about Christian conduct as well as the believer’s [your] outpouring love to the one who is being rebellious.

I am not sure if this makes sense. But following Matthew 18 principles can do wonders!  

Tom Johns

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : paizanjoe   View Profile   Since : 19 May 2016 4:39:30 AM Close

Thank you Tom Johns,

Yes. I agree. If we can truly try and become an example of Christ, then the burden that we have for the practices of the church becomes far easier to bear.

Regards,

Joe

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page


Post reply Here

please login to continue..

Registered Users, Login below:

Username Password
Problem Login?

New User? Register Now

Forgot User Name or Password? Click Here

Go to top of the page

All times are GMT -5 Hours
Forums Home ::



HOME
Back to Top