Post
by _darin-houston » Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:34 pm
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
mattrose
Joined: 23 Oct 2004
Posts: 319
Location: Western NY
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:07 am Post subject:
Pagan Christianity
- Sacraments -
1. The chapter begins by agreeing with mainstream protestant churches regarding the practice of believer’s baptism. What are the arguments against infant baptism and sprinkling?
2. PC critiques the contemporary practice of delaying baptism. The authors argue that baptism should be done immediately (as was the case in the NT). What’s the downside of delaying?
3. PC argues that the Sinner’s Prayer has replaced the role of water baptism as the initial confession of faith despite the fact that nowhere in the NT do we find any person being led to the Lord by a sinner’s prayer. What are the key differences between baptism and this prayer?
4. Viola states that baptism began to be viewed as the one time means to forgiveness. Because of this, some started waiting till their deathbed to be baptized. What Scriptures could have been used to teach this? What do they really mean?
5. Viola takes issue with the phrase ‘personal Savior,’ claiming that it is too individualistic. Do you agree that the Sinner’s Prayer and use of the phrase ‘personal Savior’ turn the focus from ‘we’ to ‘I’?
6. PC states that the Lord’s Supper was a celebratory meal whereas today it is a solemn ceremony. Were these changes positive?
7. PC points out that the ‘love feast’ was prohibited by the Council of Carthage in AD397 and, thus, the name was changed to the ‘Eucharist.’ The authors argue that even though protestants have restored the more proper terms, they haven’t restored the more proper practice. Do you agree?
8. The Wesleyan Church now recommends each church share the Lord’s Supper each month (instead of quarterly). How often would you desire to share in the Lord’s Supper?
_________________
Hemingway once said: 'The world is a fine place and worth fighting for'
I agree with the second part (se7en)
Back to top
Mort_Coyle
Joined: 13 Jun 2005
Posts: 218
Location: Seattle, WA
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:22 am Post subject:
So how is the class and the discussions going Matt?
Back to top
mattrose
Joined: 23 Oct 2004
Posts: 319
Location: Western NY
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 12:57 pm Post subject:
Going very well. A lot of good discussion and some funny jokes (especially in the week about clergy salaries, me being a salaried clergy and all). The general consensus of the class, though, seems to be that they agree with the author a little LESS than I do. Their major complaint seems to be his borderline hatred for organization
That being said, quite a few of them are actually reading the entire book for themselves instead of just coming to discuss the questions on the handouts. I think it's been edifying.
_________________
Hemingway once said: 'The world is a fine place and worth fighting for'
I agree with the second part (se7en)
Back to top
Paidion
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 851
Location: Chapple, Ontario
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 5:13 pm Post subject:
Quote:
8. The Wesleyan Church now recommends each church share the Lord’s Supper each month (instead of quarterly). How often would you desire to share in the Lord’s Supper?
In the first two centuries, the communion (or "eucharist") was observed every Sunday. This was not "the Lord's Supper". The latter was a meal in honour of Christ (also called a "Love Feast") which culminated with the taking of the unleavened bread and the wine in remembrance of Jesus. I am not sure how or why the Love Feast was dropped from Christian practice.
_________________
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 9
Last edited by Paidion on Wed Jun 18, 2008 5:26 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
mattrose
Joined: 23 Oct 2004
Posts: 319
Location: Western NY
Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:06 am Post subject:
Could you further explain the differences you see b/w Eucharist and Love Feast. I was under the impression that the Love Feast was replaced BY the Eucharist.
_________________
Hemingway once said: 'The world is a fine place and worth fighting for'
I agree with the second part (se7en)
Back to top
Paidion
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 851
Location: Chapple, Ontario
Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:51 pm Post subject:
Matt, you wrote:
Could you further explain the differences you see b/w Eucharist and Love Feast. I was under the impression that the Love Feast was replaced BY the Eucharist.
At "The Last Supper", Jesus was celebrating the Passover with His disciples. As I read the narrative, when the celebration of the Passover was complete, Jesus took bread (unleavened) and wine (also unleavened, in that all yeast used to make wine is eventually killed by the alcohol) and instituted the Communion (sharing). The significance of using unleavened elements is that that which was signified (His body and blood) were pure and unaffected by evil. Leaven is often used in the Scriptures to symolize something evil or false (Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees).
This communion began to be called "The Eucharist" (Thanksgiving) in the early church, as thanks was given to Christ for having given His body and blood on behalf of those who follow Him. But the first century church continued to practice "The Lord's Supper", also called "The Love Feast", that is, they had a meal in common, and then ended it with the Communion or Eucharist. This is evident from Paul's description of it in I Corinthians 11:20-22
When you meet together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal, and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?
These words of Paul clearly show that the Lord's Supper was a meal. If you were hungry, you wouldn't come to a Communion to get a little piece of wafer or a cube of white bread. Nor if you wanted to get drunk, would you come to a meeting to take a sip of wine or Welch's grape juice. There's no doubt that The Lord's Supper" was a full-fledged meal with food and wine being consumed. Jude mentions "love feasts" in verse 12 of his letter.
In the early days of Christianity, enemies of Christ's Assembly accused Christians of having promiscuous sexual intercourse at their love feasts. Apparently, this accusation arose from the very terminology "love feast" and "koinonia" (sharing). Indeed, the word translated "communion" ("koinonia") was used in the Greek world of the day as a term for sexual intercourse.
It may have been partially because of these accusations that the Love Feasts were later dropped from Christian practice, and only the taking of bread and wine was retained . But modern Christians who want to get back to "early church practice" would do well to consider participating once again in the full version of "The Lord's Supper", or "Love Feast".
_________________
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 9
Back to top
mattrose
Joined: 23 Oct 2004
Posts: 319
Location: Western NY
Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:16 pm Post subject:
Thanks
I thought you were trying to make a case that 'love feasts' and 'communion' were completely separate events. But you seem to be saying that a full meal with 'communion' at the end was the early church pattern. I agree
I also agree that we'd do well to make it a full meal again.
_________________
Hemingway once said: 'The world is a fine place and worth fighting for'
I agree with the second part (se7en)
Back to top
Paidion
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 851
Location: Chapple, Ontario
Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 5:30 pm Post subject:
Thank you, Matt. I'm glad I could clarify. Maybe you missed the following sentence in my previous post:
Quote:
The latter [Lord's Supper) was a meal in honour of Christ (also called a "Love Feast") which culminated with the taking of the unleavened bread and the wine in remembrance of Jesus.
_________________
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 9
Back to top
Last edited by
Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
