Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
How can you say communion is contrary to what the king taught? Aren't you aware of this command from the King? 1 Corinthians 11:24pom2014 said:There truly is no reason to have the eucharist or communion save to have tradition for traditions sake.
It is contrary to everything the King taught.
But then that's not stopped them from doing many things against the King.
Former SBC President Frank Page told The Christian Post he was outraged that Jester's would consider "profitcy more important than prophecy," then quickly addedthat he knows "profitcy" is not a real word, but as a Southern Baptist preacher he is required to make it rhyme.
In other interviews with CP, Southern Baptist leaders expressed mixed feelings about the change.
Current SBC President Ronnie Floyd was excited about the move. "I look forward to any change that makes communion more like the original Last Supper," he said, adding that he will also celebrate with bare, recently washed feet, and point out people who have betrayed him.
Former SBC President Fred Luter sounded more agnostic. Whenever this reporter asked him how he felt about the switch, he simply replied, "do you know Jesus?"
David Platt, president of SBC's International Mission Board, said switching to wine was a "totally radical" move, which meant, this reporter later learned, it is a good thing.
You do know that one this is Paul addressing ills in the church at Corinth not the King?lforrest said:How can you say communion is contrary to what the king taught? Aren't you aware of this command from the King? 1 Corinthians 11:24
I do not place much value on tradition, but sometimes there is a spiritual significance to it.
No, the verse reads DO this in remembrance of me. It is setting a future right of the church, and as Paul also used it AFTER Jesus was gone by quoting Him in 1 Cor 11,pom2014 said:Context context context.
Do this NOW in remembrance of me.
Not over and over and over.
Paul was addressing the tradition the church had begun and how they were keeping people away from it or giving it righteous piety when they weren't being righteous.
The King never said continue to do this every Sunday or four times a year.
That is church tradition for traditions sake.
No pom it states eat this bread and drink this wine....the context is the last supper, and you're ignoring 1 Cor 11.pom2014 said:Whenever you drink wine think of me as I won't drink it with you again until my kingdom comes.
Not do this exact thing like a ritual.
Its like raising a glass to the departed, not the same thing every Tuesday at the pub while wearing your Manchester United cap.
You want to justify the tradition because that's the way you've be brought up. It is a physical way of being connected, I get that. But its not King commanded ritual. He gave us no rituals.
Look if you like it have at it. But don't say its straight from Jesus and give it sanctification because of a misread context.
What Paul said was that communion was NOT a social event, he didn't say it was not a church event. Whether it is done at home or at church, it is valid.FHII said:The proper context in 1 cor 11 is that what many call "communion" shouldn't be done at Church. What was happening is that folks who could afford to bring food and wine were having a party and not sharing. Paul said, "knock it off!" So no it shouldn't be done during a service. But it can be done at home with brethren. And should be.
I'm also going to say that every time Paul preached and every time a real man of God preaches there is communion, but it is spiritual wine and bread. But... people generally don't think in those terms.
<< There truly is no reason to have the eucharist or communion save to have tradition for traditions sake.>>pom2014 said:There truly is no reason to have the eucharist or communion save to have tradition for traditions sake.
It is contrary to everything the King taught.
But then that's not stopped them from doing many things against the King.
Are you RC?JimParker said:<< There truly is no reason to have the eucharist or communion save to have tradition for traditions sake.>>
:blink: Huh???
Are you a Christian?
Do you read a Bible on a regular basis?
If so, where did you get that idea?
Just wondering because that statement reveals a serious lack of understanding as to what the Eucharist actually is.