Tim Samoff // Weblog (old)

Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url

Well, from what I have read on the subject from the Bible. The Body of Christ is not the church in its entirety but it does include the church. The Body of Christ is the Body of Believers. When Paul talks about communion he talks about “taking communion in an unholy matter” in referenceto unconfessed sin. It isn’t that they go to hell twice but it is the taking the Eucharist in an unholy matter that is the issue. Paul mentions “that is why many of you are sick within the Body of Christ.” Also, Jesus does offer boundaries in thathe told the adulterer to “go and sin no more” and threw out the money changers. These acknowledgements show who Jesus confirmed the boundaries rather than do away with them. “I came not to do away with the law but to fulfill the Law.”

DH () - June 15, 2006 at 3:26 pm

DH, you are towing the hyper conservative party line with your proof texts… Jesus said come… Who ever wanted to sincerely come and was denied? The church in Corinth was pretty wicked… church folks involved in incest… those people knew better and were working the system. The knew better they should have been repentant but instead kept going through the motions… those people were definitely sick. Those who desire to come to the table of the Lord at the invitation of Christ are not included in your description… sorry but you are setting boundaries that Jesus gave his life to tear down… be careful,,, Why do you throw the adulterer who was instructed to go and sin no more into this mix and the money changers… dude bad exegesis… relax the table of the Lord is open to those who will come…

Peace and Joy

Mike () (URL) - June 15, 2006 at 9:09 pm

Thanks again for putting better what I would have said, Mike.

I didn’t bring up my old post to start the “going to hell twice” debate againg, but just to state that we’ve talked about this issue before.

I really think it’s important to view the actions of Christ (fairly all-inclusive in his behaviors) as an example of how we should act — communion being just one of those things that, over the last 2000 years, we might have under-contextualized and over-regulated.

timsamoff () (URL) - June 16, 2006 at 06:14 am

I’m not being hyper conservative. If they desire to come to the table of the Lord shouldn’t the church share theGospel so the become Believers in the first place. I wasjust stating that Jesushad boundaries or he wouldn’t have mentioned sin. It isn’t a proof text in that Paul in the later passages mentions the definition being unconfessed sin. I’m speaking for myself as well. There is a reverence neededwhen taken communion. We as Believers must all make sure we are taking it in a Holy matter. When I see the Bible saying the standards of who should come it isn’t over-regulated but God setting the standard. If we all know sin is unholy and the Bibleinstructs us to take communion in a Holy manner. Then it seems pretty clear and therest is adding to the text beyond what it is orginally intended.

dh () - June 16, 2006 at 07:39 am

for proper context here are the passage at issue
1 Cor 11:17-34

dh () - June 16, 2006 at 07:42 am

DH, I think your reading of scripture is very clear to you. Yes, sin is bad and Communion is a Holy thing… Peace my brother…

Mike () (URL) - June 16, 2006 at 08:41 am

(I began writing this before Mike commented, but I’ll still post — Doug and I are good that way.)

Well, actually, Doug, you are prooftexting… But, that’s beside the point. So, let me prooftext a little for myself…

Couldn’t this (1 Cor. 27):
“Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.”

...be referring to this (1 Cor. 21):
“...for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk.”

Seems logical, as verse 27 comes after verse 21 and is seemingly a conclusion for the passage.

So, then we get to verse 29:
“For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.”

Sure, I think this might be true (although, Paul is speaking to some relatively new churches who are still learning the “dos” and “don’ts” of how to be church). This being said, if you listen to Mike’s definition of the Eucharist in the audio file I provided, you’ll see that he is clearly asking those who come to the table to recognize the elements.

(Also, to give you a little context for Mike’s sermon, I didn’t include it in the audio above, but every time we take the bread and wine at Jacob’s Well, 1 Cor. 23-26 is read.)

This brings me to what you said about the “gospel.” What is your definition of the gospel anyway? And, thinking of how Jesus told people the gospel, when did he actually do this? (I.e., did Jesus tell people of the gospel before, after, during breaking bread with them?)

Here is the closest definition to “gospel” that I’ve come across in the bible (Mark 1:14-15):
“After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. ‘The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!’”

Is this what you are referring to as “gospel”? Or, something else?

If it’s something else, then fill us in. If it’s Mark 1:14-15, then I think our church (although, you’ll just have to take my word for it) has done a pretty good job of conveying it to those who are invited to the table of Christ.

timsamoff () (URL) - June 16, 2006 at 08:54 am

I don’t believe I am prooftexting but taken the passage in its proper context. I believe that taking Communion with unconfessed sin is taking communion in an unholy manner and it istaking by not recognizing the Body. With regard to the Gospel I agree with your Mark passage and I believe that the passage that Paul says inconjuction with gospel “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and Believe with your heart that Godhas risen from the dead you shall be saved.” and “Without Faith it is impossible to please God.” (I say this in that they are all within the context of how one enters the Kingdom and thus the Gospel.) So yes there is agreement on the Gospel.

I feel those who are invited to the table should befirst believers and second if Believers we asBelievers should take it with a Holy heart.
I like what Mike said and I think “Sin is unholy, Communion is a Holy thing.” is a good standard for the Body with regard to Communion. As encouragement andkind of a side note I enjoy the passage “Be ye Holy even as My Father in heaven is Holy.” I pray as many who will Believe will Believe andthat all Believers live with an attitude of Holiness to the Lord with all our hearts. With that final prayer, peace andGraceto you Tim, Mike and all who have read this thread.

dh () - June 16, 2006 at 09:11 am

Prooftext: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prooftext

In 1 Cor., Paul is speaking to a specific church (at Corinth) in a specific time (over 2000 years ago). Yes, these passages can be taken into consideration and possibly even used today. But, to say that you’re not taking them out of context… Well, that’s a stretch. The context of 1 Cor. is placed with a people and a time very unlike our own. To directly apply those words to our current context is to automatically take them completely out of context.

Likewise, to add Paul’s words to what I said I believe is the gospel and then say that you agree with me is also wrong. I said what I believe the gospel is. And, while I believe Paul’s words as well, I don’t think I’d add them to the “gospel,” as those were not the words of Jesus.

Re: “Without Faith it is impossible to please God.”

True, but how does one please God when one does not know God? And, couldn’t communion be a way to come into the presence of God — a way to realize that there is, in fact, a God who desires to be pleased?

timsamoff () (URL) - June 16, 2006 at 09:40 am

You ask “but how does one please God when one does not know God?” By accepting Christ and be Born Again and be like Peter “You are the Christ the Son of the Living God.” or Thomas “My Lord and my God.” Sorry, but I feel the entire Bible is “God’s Word” I Believe that what the Apostle says is Scripture. I don’t feel I am taking them out of context in that it is part of Scripture. What I said from Paul didn’t add to or take away from what Jesus said. Also what you said as the Gospel “Repent and believe the good news!” sounds exactly what Paul said. Jesus also mentioned being Born Again and goes into detail on that. He also mentions “If you deny Me I will deny you before My Father in heaven.” If you want to get directly into what Jesus said. However, what Paul said is not adding to or taking away what Jesus said to suggest that seems odd to me.

“how does one please God when one does not know God?” By accepting Jesus as Savior like we discussed earlier is the only way one can please God. “To know God is the only way for one who doesn’t know God to please God.” (my original quote)

dh () - June 16, 2006 at 10:32 am

To downplay theapostle Paul like it appears hear seems odd when all of the Epistles are talking or in reference to the Body of Christ and we are part of that same Body by Believing by Faith in Christ alone. I basically believe God spoke through all of the individual authors and that what was written in Scripture is intended for ALL past, present and future.

dh () - June 16, 2006 at 10:37 am