Article XIII

[Benjamin Burch]

I'm interested in a few things about the article of faith on the Lord's Supper.

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)

I'm very interested in the ambiguous nature of some of this article, and also have some questions about it, and how people read it.

Question 1:

the Memorial and Communion Supper... is ...
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.

This seems - to me - to be extremely ambiguous language which is open for interpretation. Through the merits of what? Christ's sacrificial death, or the sacrament?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but technically, in the English language, this statement can apply to either the main independent clause, or the dependent clause which comes between.

Thus, with the middle clause put in the way it is, with commas, it could read two different ways.

the Memorial and Communion Supper... is ...
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.

Or

the Memorial and Communion Supper... is ...
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 seems that it can apply to either the sacrificial death, or the sacrament (which would also only be effectual given the merits of the sacrificial death).

Question 2:

It
is distinctively for those who are prepared for reverent appreciation of its significance

If this "declar[es] [Christ's] sacrificial death", then what of Luke 24:34, here? Does it require "reverent appreciation of its significance"?

Does Christ not plead with the Father, during this sacrificial death, "Forgive them Father, for they do not know what they are doing"? I'm specifically interested in the implications of this verse on this part of the Article.

Question 3:

John 6:28-58

This verse is used as a reference for the Article. However, does the article jive with what Christ says here? Does the CotN believe one can have "eternal life" without eating this bread and drinking this wine?

Again, won't be arguing, just interested in how people read/deal with this article.

[Michael Flowers]

I have to admit that you raise a very good point with your first question. I can't give an answer as to which one it would be, though I really hope that is referring to Christ's death because it is not through communion that we are saved.

The "prepared for reverent appreciation of its significance" indicates that we are not just eating another "snack" as some have referred to it. If we treat it as just a snack, then what is the meaning that it brings to the believer's life? It is a memorial and a celebration, which means that we should keep its significance at the forefront of why we are partaking.

As to question 3, I'll have to examine that passage.

[Benjamin Burch]

Thank you Michael, for your response. I'll give a little more into what I'm getting at, below. As you and others well know, I'm not longer a member in the CotN, and much of it has to do with my Sacramental theology. So, my conversations always lead me towards thinking about this, and I'm always interesting in hearing what Nazarenes from a broad spectrum of opinions think. I'm also trying to do better about listening and hearing and not arguing.

I tried to do that in the "I am being saved" thread. I never (that I know of) stated others were wrong, nor tried to argue, but responded to direct questions asked of me. I'll try to do the same here, and I hope others will help me. This is really about me hearing opinions.

I have to admit that you raise a very good point with your first question. I can't give an answer as to which one it would be, though I really hope that is referring to Christ's death because it is not through communion that we are saved.

I ask this because in other traditions Christ's death and the communion are not separate events, but one and the same, and we are saved by that one event.

Also, John 6 seems to say that we do in fact receive eternal life from partaking of the communion.

The "prepared for reverent appreciation of its significance" indicates that we are not just eating another "snack" as some have referred to it. If we treat it as just a snack, then what is the meaning that it brings to the believer's life? It is a memorial and a celebration, which means that we should keep its significance at the forefront of why we are partaking.

I hang out with some guys from Bethel Seminary every Thursday. We drink beer and talk theology. It's a wonderful time. One of them is pretty cold to anything Catholic and one of his problems with weekly observance was that what he saw in the RCC was people taking communion and "not knowing what they are doing." Or, "not knowing the significance of it."

This brought to mind the tight relationship between Christ's death on the cross - and the words spoken therein - and the Communion. Does God impart grace, and forgive, even if "they do not know what they are doing"?

Does the Article seem to push against this statement by Christ?

As to question 3, I'll have to examine that passage.

It's a tough one!

[Michael Flowers]

I ask this because in other traditions Christ's death and the communion are not separate events, but one and the same, and we are saved by that one event.

Also, John 6 seems to say that we do in fact receive eternal life from partaking of the communion.

Yea, to be honest I find the placement of this teaching in John a little odd given that Communion as we think of it wasn't established until after this teaching. Also, this would indicate that anyone who does not partake of the sacrament is not going to be saved, regardless of whether they have surrendered their life to Christ. This creates issues for those who surrender and then die immediately afterward, without having had enough time to take part in the sacrament.

I'm not sure how we respond to this.

[Ryan Scott]

Yea, to be honest I find the placement of this teaching in John a little odd given that Communion as we think of it wasn't established until after this teaching. Also, this would indicate that anyone who does not partake of the sacrament is not going to be saved, regardless of whether they have surrendered their life to Christ. This creates issues for those who surrender and then die immediately afterward, without having had enough time to take part in the sacrament.

I'm not sure how we respond to this.

I'm not sure it's all that much of a stretch, especially when you view the early church's interpretation and practice - they seemed to be pretty clear that participating in communion was akin to participation in the body of Christ (which includes death and resurrection) - it was a unifying symbol of what life had become for them.

So in a way we can say there is no salvation without participation in the Lord's Supper (but it can also be argued that you don't actually have to take the bread and wine to participate - a lifestyle of selfless Christlikeness works just fine - which is the position of the Salvation Army, among others).

[Benjamin Burch]

Yea, to be honest I find the placement of this teaching in John a little odd given that Communion as we think of it wasn't established until after this teaching.

I would suggest that maybe this passage actually draws this assumption into question.

Also, this would indicate that anyone who does not partake of the sacrament is not going to be saved, regardless of whether they have surrendered their life to Christ.

I disagree. Instead, it indicates that one may not actually be able to surrender their life to Christ without partaking of Christ. Important distinction.

This creates issues for those who surrender and then die immediately afterward, without having had enough time to take part in the sacrament.

Which is why the Catholic Church has a sacrament called "Unction" or "Last Rites" which is an extension of the Eucharist.

[Benjamin Burch]

bump.....