Lord's Supper Statement Changes

[Charles W Christian]

From the Manual:

XIII. The Lord’s Supper


17. We believe that the Memorial and Communion Supper instituted by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is essentially a New Testament sacrament, declarative of His sacrificial death, through the merits of which believers have life and salvation and promise of all spiritual blessings in Christ. It is distinctively for those who are prepared for reverent appreciation of its significance, and by it they show forth the Lord’s death till He come again. It being the Communion feast, only those who have faith in Christ and love for the saints should be called to participate therein.


(Exodus 12:1-14; Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:17-20; John 6:28-58; 1 Corinthians 10:14-21; 11:23-32)
================================================== =

This may need to go in the "Nazarene renewal" thread, but it is also a theology issue, so....

Ironically, our Manual statement of faith regarding Communion is NOT in-keeping with Wesleyan tradition in a couple of places. Care to guess which? There may be more, actually, but a couple seem to stick out to me. This section of the Manual is actually on our church's website, and I am so tempted to change it to reflect Wesleyan tradition (and our church's practice) a bit better, but I haven't yet.

Thoughts?

Charles

[Susan Unger]

From the Manual:

XIII. The Lord’s Supper


17. We believe that the Memorial and Communion Supper instituted by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is essentially a New Testament sacrament, declarative of His sacrificial death, through the merits of which believers have life and salvation and promise of all spiritual blessings in Christ. It is distinctively for those who are prepared for reverent appreciation of its significance, and by it they show forth the Lord’s death till He come again. It being the Communion feast, only those who have faith in Christ and love for the saints should be called to participate therein.


(Exodus 12:1-14; Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:17-20; John 6:28-58; 1 Corinthians 10:14-21; 11:23-32)
================================================== =

This may need to go in the "Nazarene renewal" thread, but it is also a theology issue, so....

Ironically, our Manual statement of faith regarding Communion is NOT in-keeping with Wesleyan tradition in a couple of places. Care to guess which? There may be more, actually, but a couple seem to stick out to me. This section of the Manual is actually on our church's website, and I am so tempted to change it to reflect Wesleyan tradition (and our church's practice) a bit better, but I haven't yet.

Thoughts?

Charles

Since I haven't had Systematic Theology yet, I am not catching the point. And since you are the one who started my baptism education ;) why don't you start my communion education. :fav05

[Dale Cozby]

I guess it all depends on if you think the Nazarene church should adhere to a strick Wesleyan "only" doctrine or have room for the other traditions which entered into fellowship 100 yrs ago in union and formed the "Nazarene tradition", which is a descendent of the "Wesleyan tradition".;)

[Charles W Christian]

Well, I'm not meaning to sound too critical, actually. I just recently heard a great paper (presented by a Texas Nazarene, by the way, Dale) expressing his concern with the way our Manual states things on this issue. And, I re-read some of Staples on the subject, as well.

So, here's what I think at the moment:

1) I like the phrase that says, "It's distinctly for those who prepared for reverent appreciation of its significance", although for Wesley this meant more than I think our current statement implies. Wesley seemed to see Communion as a practice that could also be used to call sinners to repentance/renewal, and could assist those who were unsure of their own salvation to find greater assurance! This is more than just Christians remembering and revering what the event is about, although that's part of it. Wesley saw a bit more.

2) If it is for those who have a reverent appreciation for what it is about, does this mean that the second part ("only those who have faith in Christ and love for the saints should be called to participate therein") has to be there? For Wesley, this statement wouldn't work, it seems. For Wesley, the Communion meal (Eucharist) is a "means of grace", a true sacrament. It is more than a sacred memorial, it is a present experience of the grace of God in an unusual way! It is an encounter with Jesus mysteriously present in this act! SO, the grace of God present in this special way can draw sinners to God, can bring harmony among those who partake, can be an instrument of justice and reconciliation (due to the fact that all are equally welcome to Christ's table!), and can bring assurance to those who doubt. It is really a Eu(Good) Charist (Gift), or a gift of "thanksgiving" (eucharisto in Greek) to God!

I guess I'm saying that the current statement simply doesn't say enough. It is too watered down from what Wesley and the Wesleyan movement intended it to be, and that should be a reason for change, in my view. Wesley was more like Luther (who was more like the Catholics and the Orthodox than we given him credit for) than Wesley was like the Anabaptists (Communion as "sacred memorial" only) in regard to Communion....

Just thoughts....

Blessings,
Charles

[Susan Unger]

Well, I'm not meaning to sound too critical, actually. I just recently heard a great paper (presented by a Texas Nazarene, by the way, Dale) expressing his concern with the way our Manual states things on this issue. And, I re-read some of Staples on the subject, as well.

So, here's what I think at the moment:

1) I like the phrase that says, "It's distinctly for those who prepared for reverent appreciation of its significance", although for Wesley this meant more than I think our current statement implies. Wesley seemed to see Communion as a practice that could also be used to call sinners to repentance/renewal, and could assist those who were unsure of their own salvation to find greater assurance! This is more than just Christians remembering and revering what the event is about, although that's part of it. Wesley saw a bit more.

2) If it is for those who have a reverent appreciation for what it is about, does this mean that the second part ("only those who have faith in Christ and love for the saints should be called to participate therein") has to be there? For Wesley, this statement wouldn't work, it seems. For Wesley, the Communion meal (Eucharist) is a "means of grace", a true sacrament. It is more than a sacred memorial, it is a present experience of the grace of God in an unusual way! It is an encounter with Jesus mysteriously present in this act! SO, the grace of God present in this special way can draw sinners to God, can bring harmony among those who partake, can be an instrument of justice and reconciliation (due to the fact that all are equally welcome to Christ's table!), and can bring assurance to those who doubt. It is really a Eu(Good) Charist (Gift), or a gift of "thanksgiving" (eucharisto in Greek) to God!

I guess I'm saying that the current statement simply doesn't say enough. It is too watered down from what Wesley and the Wesleyan movement intended it to be, and that should be a reason for change, in my view. Wesley was more like Luther (who was more like the Catholics and the Orthodox than we given him credit for) than Wesley was like the Anabaptists (Communion as "sacred memorial" only) in regard to Communion....

Just thoughts....

Blessings,
Charles

Hmm....sounds good. In fact, the more I read, the more I would really like this kind of service. Good job, Teach :)

[Susan Unger]

Slightly off the subject, but refering to the subject ~ I've been looking at some others' blogs tonight and came across a website called Sacramental Nazarenes. I was quite taken aback ~ I have always thought that the two were mutally exclusive beliefs. And yet here I find out that to some it isn't. [This is a good thing, btw, to me]

The following statement boggled my mind just as much to hear that Nazarenes believe in infant baptism and that we could believe in a more wesleyan approach to Communion -

"We are devoted to thinking about the past, present and future of our liturgical traditions and sacramental life," http://sacramentalnazarenes.blogspot.com/

I read that and was confused over the word OUR. I didn't know we had liturgical traditions and sacramental lives. Or is that statement to be taken more generally and not specifically liturgy found in Episcopalian/Lutheran/Catholic?

This interests me cuz I have felt like a fish out of water in church. I find more meaning in a liturgical setting than in a simpler protestant service. The highlight of my church year is when mom and I go to the local episcopal cathedral for their Christmas Service. And since I didn't know Nazarenes could do liturgical, I felt kind of like I had to hide that aspect of my life [and hide the fact that I dont' think Pentecostals are as horrible as I have been told to believe by my childhood pastor/spouse].

I am curious to know how does one institute a more liturgical approach in a church setting?

[Barbara Moulton]

I like the statement of my denomination. (Wesleyan)

We believe that the Lord's Supper is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death and of our hope in His victorious return, as well as a sign of the love that Christians have for each other. To such as receive it humbly, with a proper spirit and by faith, the Lord's Supper is made a means through which God communicates grace to the heart.

[Jon Twitchell]

Charles,

On the one hand, I agree with your thoughts about the statement itself.

On the other hand, I have to come back to my recent thread on local churches rewriting the Articles of Faith as they see fit.

If you were to do something along those lines, please don't simply rewrite the Articles of Faith to what you think they should say, and put them on your website.... :) If you wanted to devote a paragraph (as a footnote), or even an entire page to explaining a Wesleyan perspective on Sacraments, I think that would be great.

[Hans Deventer]

I like the statement of my denomination. (Wesleyan)

I do too. Good statement.

[Ryan Scott]

17. We believe that the Memorial and Communion Supper instituted by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is essentially a New Testament sacrament, declarative of His sacrificial death, through the merits of which believers have life and salvation and promise of all spiritual blessings in Christ. It is distinctively for those who are prepared for reverent appreciation of its significance, and by it they show forth the Lord’s death till He come again. It being the Communion feast, only those who have faith in Christ and love for the saints should be called to participate therein.


When I read this, I see two threads, one I was taught since I was a child - that communion is just a remembrance and that it is only for people who are saved. That is in there.

I also see a thread much closer to my current beliefs - that communion is a sacrament and a means of grace in Christ Jesus - that it is open for all who appreciate it's reverence. I don't think one need be committed to Christian life to partake; I don't think that is implicit in the statement. I do think people need to understand the local body within which they partake and understand the significance of the sacrament. It is on the officiant and the congregation if those things aren't clearly communicated beforehand.

[Charles W Christian]

I like the statement of my denomination. (Wesleyan)

We believe that the Lord's Supper is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death and of our hope in His victorious return, as well as a sign of the love that Christians have for each other. To such as receive it humbly, with a proper spirit and by faith, the Lord's Supper is made a means through which God communicates grace to the heart.

THIS is a great statement! I like it. Thanks for sharing it. God bless those Wesleyans....:basic07

CWC

[Eric Vail]

the Lord's Supper is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death

Barbara, would you unfold how this is commonly understood, taught, or practiced in the Wesleyan church? I'm unsure exactly what is being claimed when reading this. Thanks for posting this!

[Mike Schutz]

I also see a thread much closer to my current beliefs - that communion is a sacrament and a means of grace in Christ Jesus - that it is open for all who appreciate it's reverence. I don't think one need be committed to Christian life to partake; I don't think that is implicit in the statement. I do think people need to understand the local body within which they partake and understand the significance of the sacrament. It is on the officiant and the congregation if those things aren't clearly communicated beforehand.

Ryan, help me out here and explain how the statement makes room for those who are not believers to participate in the sacrament.

[Ryan Scott]

"It is distinctively for those who are prepared for reverent appreciation of its significance, and by it they show forth the Lord’s death till He come again. It being the Communion feast, only those who have faith in Christ and love for the saints should be called to participate therein."

I know a number of people who would fit the above description, but not be full participants in the Church in the way we've traditionally defined it. "Faith in Christ" is, despite our often strict interpretation of it, is relatively ambiguous. I think a person needs to understand the meaning and importance of the Lord's Supper and affirm that this "Christ" is or has something which is meaningful to people - that seems like faith to me, even if it is in small measure.

When I've invited people to communion, my final (and not only) words of explanation are generally, "Come, those who wish to experience Christ." I think that's an appropriate desires for participants and one within the definition above.

[Mike Schutz]

"It is distinctively for those who are prepared for reverent appreciation of its significance, and by it they show forth the Lord’s death till He come again. It being the Communion feast, only those who have faith in Christ and love for the saints should be called to participate therein."

I know a number of people who would fit the above description, but not be full participants in the Church in the way we've traditionally defined it. "Faith in Christ" is, despite our often strict interpretation of it, is relatively ambiguous. I think a person needs to understand the meaning and importance of the Lord's Supper and affirm that this "Christ" is or has something which is meaningful to people - that seems like faith to me, even if it is in small measure.

When I've invited people to communion, my final (and not only) words of explanation are generally, "Come, those who wish to experience Christ." I think that's an appropriate desires for participants and one within the definition above.

So, if I dare, may I ask the question my friend Dr. Kelly Steve McCormick might ask:
So what, my dear Mr. Scott, do you do with "The gifts of God for the people of God?"

[Crystal Lutton]

I like the statement of my denomination. (Wesleyan)

We believe that the Lord's Supper is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death and of our hope in His victorious return, as well as a sign of the love that Christians have for each other. To such as receive it humbly, with a proper spirit and by faith, the Lord's Supper is made a means through which God communicates grace to the heart.

I like that your statement doesn't include the idea of it being a "New Testament" invention. The meaning was infused in the Gospel, and, yes, the sacrament that grew out of it is unique to the Church, but the meal itself isn't something new and original that Jesus threw together for his disciples. We only offer the Lord's Supper in the context of the annual Passover--though we don't restrict it at any other time in it's mini-version.

Interestingly, Passover is supposed to be for "teaching" and for "remembrance" which is contrary to the idea that this particular sacrament should now be only for believers. I have found that in the context of participating in a Messianic Passover Seder the unbeliever gets to experience ideas that have previously been nebulous or confusing or unknown. I find the same with my children and a modern-Church communion. Kinesthetic learning is wonderful!

[Ryan Scott]

So, if I dare, may I ask the question my friend Dr. Kelly Steve McCormick might ask:
So what, my dear Mr. Scott, do you do with "The gifts of God for the people of God?"

You're saying that some people out there aren't God's people? I think you took too many classes at Gordon-Conwell.

[John Kennedy]

Well, at the risk of touching off another round (some people have a round of drinks - we have a round of discussion - hmmmm) Naznet alcohol discussion, it's my impression that when the priest raises the chalice and says those words, the chalice contains wine. That, of course, makes the whole matter moot for Nazarenes.

On a more serious (I nearly said sober) note, the Anglican service contains a prayer that begins with these words: "We do not come to this, your table, O Lord, trusting in our own righteousness..." So maybe this let's some of Ryan's people in.

Incidentally, that prayer, IMO, contains some of the greatest teaching as to what transpires at the Lord's Table. It, for me, removes the meal from being merely a 'memorial' and reinforces its sacramental status.

One of the values of providing of solid liturgical foundation for communion is that it makes clear to the communicant what this whole thing is all about. A form of 'full disclosure and informed consent', if you will.

I simply believe that anyone, saint or sinner, who comes to the table in the spirit of the invitation will meet Jesus there. Those are not merely symbols, they are for us, the body and blood.

Better stop - if I say much more I might have to seek ordination (and I've already had all the dialogues with Ministerial Studies and Orders and Relations that I care to).

[Barbara Moulton]

Barbara, would you unfold how this is commonly understood, taught, or practiced in the Wesleyan church? I'm unsure exactly what is being claimed when reading this. Thanks for posting this!

Well, remember that I became a Wesleyan 8 years ago and that our whole experience in this denomination has been in this one church which is rather isolated from the rest of the district. I haven't had any theological discussions with other Wesleyan ministers about communion :) So I really can't speak for how it is taught and practiced generally in the Wesleyan Church.

Having said that, the statement gives us the freedom to practice an open communion. We extend it to all in the congregation who know Jesus or who are seeking to know Jesus. As a small church, we all come to the front for communion and we encourage everyone to come up and join the circle, even if they don't partake of the elements. We rarely have someone sitting in their seat while the rest of us observe the Lord's supper at the front.

Just last month a young man came and stood with us, even though he didn't take communion.

That's why I like our statement. Communion is about the communication of God's grace to our heart, no matter where we are at in our spiritual journey. Not one of the disciples were at the same place when they shared the first Last Supper with Jesus. In fact, one of them them had already purposed in his heart to betray Jesus. Yet Scripture seems to indicate that they all took part.

[Dennis M. Scott]

Are there still lots of people for whom this is ONLY a memorial? ONLY for believers?

[Susan Unger]

Are there still lots of people for whom this is ONLY a memorial? ONLY for believers?

Until reading about this in Naznet, I would say that this was taught to me to be only a memorial and only for believers. My childhood pastor wasn't into mystery so he only presented it as a memorial. But, after the way it is described here sacramentally, I think that I would get more out of it if it were presented as a sacrament. As for being only for believers, I'm still thinking on that.

[Eric Frey]

Here is the direct statement of belief from the UMC which is directly taken from Wesley's Sunday Service. I am post both the artical on "Sacraments" and on "The Lord's Supper."

Article 16.-Of the Sacraments

Sacraments ordained of Christ are not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they are certain signs of grace, and God's good will toward us, by which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm, our faith in him. There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called sacraments, that is to say, confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, and extreme unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel; being such as have partly grown out of the corrupt following of the apostles, and partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not the like nature of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, because they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about; but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation; but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves condemnation, as St. Paul saith.

And...

Article 18.-Of the Lord's Supper

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death; insomuch that, to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshiped.

It seems clear that for Wesley the Lord's Supper is NOT a memorial. Wesley took very seriously the words of our Lord "This is my body...this is my blood." While refuting transubstantiation, Wesly reputed memorialisn as equally repugnant.

It also seems clear that for Wesley the Lord's Supper is for those who "rightly, worthily, and with faith receive [it]." This is open to interpretation, but given Wesley's context as a priest in the Church of England, and the sacraments context in the ordo salutis (baptism as conversion & eucharist as nurture/grow/sanctification, etc) that Wesley was not as open as we want to impose on him. I am not suggesting we errect a strict fense around the grace of God given at his table, I do however, believe we do not give these issues as much thought as they deserve.

[Charles W Christian]

Here is the direct statement of belief from the UMC which is directly taken from Wesley's Sunday Service. I am post both the artical on "Sacraments" and on "The Lord's Supper."

Article 16.-Of the Sacraments

Sacraments ordained of Christ are not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they are certain signs of grace, and God's good will toward us, by which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm, our faith in him. There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord.

Those five commonly called sacraments, that is to say, confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, and extreme unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel; being such as have partly grown out of the corrupt following of the apostles, and partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not the like nature of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, because they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried about; but that we should duly use them. And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation; but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves condemnation, as St. Paul saith.

And...

Article 18.-Of the Lord's Supper

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death; insomuch that, to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshiped.

It seems clear that for Wesley the Lord's Supper is NOT a memorial. Wesley took very seriously the words of our Lord "This is my body...this is my blood." While refuting transubstantiation, Wesly reputed memorialisn as equally repugnant.

It also seems clear that for Wesley the Lord's Supper is for those who "rightly, worthily, and with faith receive [it]." This is open to interpretation, but given Wesley's context as a priest in the Church of England, and the sacraments context in the ordo salutis (baptism as conversion & eucharist as nurture/grow/sanctification, etc) that Wesley was not as open as we want to impose on him. I am not suggesting we errect a strict fense around the grace of God given at his table, I do however, believe we do not give these issues as much thought as they deserve.

Actually, Eric -
This makes a Wesleyan approach to Communion more open than most give him credit for (more open than our current Nazarene statement, which was my whole point in this thread). Wesley in places (do an index search of Wesley on the sacraments either in his Works or on NNU's site) urges those who are stuggling with assurance to partake in Communion. This is unusual for his day, and for much of Christian dialogue about the sacraments.

The context in the ordo salutis that Wesley seemed to address the sacrament of Communion was throughout, not simply AFTER a faith commitment, but as the instrument of calling people to faith, too....

Just a thought. Thanks for your post!

Charles

[John Kennedy]

Are there still lots of people for whom this is ONLY a memorial? ONLY for believers?

Dennis -
Don't know if this question was addressed to me...

There are undoubtedly lots who still believe that way. They are, of course, welcome to their beliefs and opinions. I choose to believe otherwise.

Ironically, viewing both the supper and baptism as sacraments, rather than simply memorials, is one of those beliefs that seems to be found in both ends of the Calvinist-Arminian spectrum.

Real Calvinists (not Baptists, either 'up-front' or 'stealth') view both the supper and baptism as sacraments. Arminians, of the classic Wesleyan variety, view both as sacraments.

As for those who subscribe to the 'only for believers' point of view: with some of them it should be amended to read 'only for SOME believers'. Churches that practice 'closed communion' would certainly be numbered among this group.

Some churches that are ostensibly 'open communion' in official belief, still attempt to build a fence around the table. I can still remember hearing the sermons where the Scriptural admonition about eating and drinking 'unworthily' got transmuted into only taking communion if one was 'worthy'.

So the Lord's table, instead of being a place where the spiritually needy found Christ and his grace, became a place where the spiritually elite meet to eat.

It's still a good question as to whether bad theology influences abberrant exegesis or vice versa. No matter which way it goes, the result is still the same.

If my understanding of church history is correct, the principal deal breaker between the reformers and anabaptists, was in regard to the view of the sacraments. The classic reformers baptized infants and viewed communion as a sacrament. The anabaptists (the name is a dead give-away on their point of view toward infant baptism) insisted on believers baptism only and held to a 'memorial only' view of the Lord's Supper.

[Hans Deventer]

Are there still lots of people for whom this is ONLY a memorial? ONLY for believers?

I don't know. Not for me. To me, it is preaching and conveying God's unbelievable grace through the symbols of bread and wine.

[Eric Frey]

Actually, Eric -
This makes a Wesleyan approach to Communion more open than most give him credit for (more open than our current Nazarene statement, which was my whole point in this thread). Wesley in places (do an index search of Wesley on the sacraments either in his Works or on NNU's site) urges those who are stuggling with assurance to partake in Communion. This is unusual for his day, and for much of Christian dialogue about the sacraments.

The context in the ordo salutis that Wesley seemed to address the sacrament of Communion was throughout, not simply AFTER a faith commitment, but as the instrument of calling people to faith, too....

Just a thought. Thanks for your post!

Charles

I don't want ANOTHER extended conversation about this as it has been discussed ad nauseum already in other threads, but I am not sure that I follow. Could you clarify for me?

As I understand them, assurance and salvation are not the same thing. In the context of the ordo salutis the growth in grace procedes from one's salvation. In the context of the Church of England's (and Wesley's) sacramental life, Eucharist procedes from baptism. Therefore one could "strugle with assurance" of the grace bestowed in their baptism and still receive the Supper precisely because they had been baptised.

[Mike Schutz]

You're saying that some people out there aren't God's people? I think you took too many classes at Gordon-Conwell.

Yes, I am - and I don't think it comes from spending time with my good Calvinist brothers and sisters.

I think I think that every single person is a recipient of God's grace, enabling that person to respond to God's love if they choose to do so. I do believe that God loves everyone.

I think I think that only those who have been initiated into the kingdom of God -either through their own decision to accept God's grace, or through the decision of others to introduce and initiate them into the fellowship of believers, can be considered as "people of God."

So, while I do believe that every person is potentially a "person of God," not everyone is in relationship with God. I think I think that only those who are in relationship with God are "people of God."

So, when we say, "The gifts of God for the people of God," what I think I think we are saying is that these gifts are means of grace for those who are in relationship with God. I also believe that the sacrament may be a means of grace for those who have allowed the relationship to drift.

[Dale Cozby]

just some thoughts.....

A Sacrament is a holy moment. A Sacred moment in time. A marking of things different. Our Catholic brothers have 7 such sacred moments they observe as such.

Baptism, which we also observe.
Communion, again we observe it.

And to these they acknowledge as sacred moments: Confession or repentance; Ordination/Holy Orders; Marriage/the mystery of union; Anointing the sick/miracles/or last rites; and confirmation/ reaching the age of reason and accountablity in the faith.

I think all of these are pretty sacred moments in our walk in the faith.

What we make of them depends greatly on how much value we place in them.

To some they are rather meaningless gestures.

But I see this law at work:
He who sows sparingly also reaps sparingly.

To those who place great value in these sacred moments they will reap what they sow as well.

[Ryan Scott]

Yes, I am - and I don't think it comes from spending time with my good Calvinist brothers and sisters.

I think I think that every single person is a recipient of God's grace, enabling that person to respond to God's love if they choose to do so. I do believe that God loves everyone.

I think I think that only those who have been initiated into the kingdom of God -either through their own decision to accept God's grace, or through the decision of others to introduce and initiate them into the fellowship of believers, can be considered as "people of God."

So, while I do believe that every person is potentially a "person of God," not everyone is in relationship with God. I think I think that only those who are in relationship with God are "people of God."

So, when we say, "The gifts of God for the people of God," what I think I think we are saying is that these gifts are means of grace for those who are in relationship with God. I also believe that the sacrament may be a means of grace for those who have allowed the relationship to drift.


I was being too flippant with my response earlier. I do agree that are people who have definitely decided to "opt out" of God's grace.

At the same time, if a person has not completely rejected God, they still have a relationship with God (I guess this applies even if they have rejected God) that God is still trying to restore.

I think a person needs to take it seriously, but to say someone who is undecided or whose relationship with God is tumultuous shouldn't participate seems to be going too far.

[Edith K. Thurmond]

Dennis -
Don't know if this question was addressed to me...

There are undoubtedly lots who still believe that way. They are, of course, welcome to their beliefs and opinions. I choose to believe otherwise.

Ironically, viewing both the supper and baptism as sacraments, rather than simply memorials, is one of those beliefs that seems to be found in both ends of the Calvinist-Arminian spectrum.

Real Calvinists (not Baptists, either 'up-front' or 'stealth') view both the supper and baptism as sacraments. Arminians, of the classic Wesleyan variety, view both as sacraments.

As for those who subscribe to the 'only for believers' point of view: with some of them it should be amended to read 'only for SOME believers'. Churches that practice 'closed communion' would certainly be numbered among this group.

Some churches that are ostensibly 'open communion' in official belief, still attempt to build a fence around the table. I can still remember hearing the sermons where the Scriptural admonition about eating and drinking 'unworthily' got transmuted into only taking communion if one was 'worthy'.

So the Lord's table, instead of being a place where the spiritually needy found Christ and his grace, became a place where the spiritually elite meet to eat.

It's still a good question as to whether bad theology influences abberrant exegesis or vice versa. No matter which way it goes, the result is still the same.

If my understanding of church history is correct, the principal deal breaker between the reformers and anabaptists, was in regard to the view of the sacraments. The classic reformers baptized infants and viewed communion as a sacrament. The anabaptists (the name is a dead give-away on their point of view toward infant baptism) insisted on believers baptism only and held to a 'memorial only' view of the Lord's Supper.

John, this is a great summary post of the differences! On more than one occasion, I have been corrected by people in the SBC for using the word sacrament and was informed that the correct word was ordinance. One can definitely see the anabaptist influence on much of the Protestant movement today. Technically, the SBCers don't identify themselves as Protestants.

An interesting forum to peruse is www.puritanboard.com (http://www.puritanboard.com) which is chiefly composed of those of the Reformed theology. There are some Baptists on there who are leaning towards Reformed theology, with many of them being more the independent type Baptists. It is very interesting to see their discussions on paedo baptism vs. credo baptism, as well as a variety of other topics.

Sharing your views of the sacraments,

[Edith K. Thurmond]

Slightly off the subject, but refering to the subject ~ I've been looking at some others' blogs tonight and came across a website called Sacramental Nazarenes. I was quite taken aback ~ I have always thought that the two were mutally exclusive beliefs. And yet here I find out that to some it isn't. [This is a good thing, btw, to me]

The following statement boggled my mind just as much to hear that Nazarenes believe in infant baptism and that we could believe in a more wesleyan approach to Communion -
"We are devoted to thinking about the past, present and future of our liturgical traditions and sacramental life," http://sacramentalnazarenes.blogspot.com/
I read that and was confused over the word OUR. I didn't know we had liturgical traditions and sacramental lives. Or is that statement to be taken more generally and not specifically liturgy found in Episcopalian/Lutheran/Catholic?

This interests me cuz I have felt like a fish out of water in church. I find more meaning in a liturgical setting than in a simpler protestant service. The highlight of my church year is when mom and I go to the local episcopal cathedral for their Christmas Service. And since I didn't know Nazarenes could do liturgical, I felt kind of like I had to hide that aspect of my life [and hide the fact that I dont' think Pentecostals are as horrible as I have been told to believe by my childhood pastor/spouse].

I am curious to know how does one institute a more liturgical approach in a church setting?

Susan, you might find some answers on Dennis Bratcher's site: www.crivoice.org (http://www.crivoice.org). This site is a wealth of information on a variety of topics and one can learn much from continual reading there. Dr. Bratcher is a Nazarene theology professor and his wife is a chaplain in the U.S. Air Force. Both have written several liturgical services and they plan to have more posted on the site in the near future when they get settled in their move to the U.S. from Korea.

Blessings and joy,