 |
|
|
No Christian should ever be sick...
-- Benny Hinn
|
|
| |
Church Issues from First Corinthians: Communion
Posted on Sunday, October 08 @ 20:29:18 PDT by Paul |
|
By Paul Richard Strange, Sr.
The local congregation which my wife and I are members of is Presbyterian. The reason why I bring up my denominational affiliation is simply to be upfront about my views on church government, which happen to be in agreement with what is called "the plurality of elders", and with the conviction that like-minded congregations should find problem-solving and ministry cooperation interactions through sending representatives to councils, synods, etc, beyond the local church.
This is in contrast to the belief that every congregation of professing believers in God through Christ is meant to be entirely "autonomous", as well as in contrast to the "top-down" leadership model of a super-bishop or patriarch or pope. Since I believe that God gathers in most of His children through visible local churches, it is only right to be open about this issue.
My point in bringing this up is not to criticize anyone who doesn't see presbyterian government as the best way to go. Simply, my goal is to try to make the principles regarding this open for all to see, as I attempt to share my conviction that First Corinthians is a thoroughly preteristic New Testament Book, with implications for churches of all kinds!
What aroused an effort to prayerfully re-think my way through church issues discussed in the Apostle Paul's first letter to the believers in 1st Century Corinth was my Pastor's question to me, "If preterism is true, then why do we celebrate the Lord's Table?" As most preterists are aware, as well as large numbers of futurists, the Apostle Paul told his readers that their breaking of the Bread and the Cup was a demonstration of the Lord's death on the Cross "until He comes". There are two reasonable conclusions which to me seem to be feasible for every John Doe average English Bible reader to draw from the Apostle's words in 1st Cor. 11:
(1) All Christians everywhere will cease to break the Bread and drink the Cup of the Lord's Supper when some future final Second Advent occurs; or else,
(2) You Corinthians only have a short time to get your act together, secure your eternal reward, and prepare for immortality, because you only have a short time before you meet the Lord in His judgment-coming!
The Apostle's first letter to these believers was filled with disapproval of many things that they were wrong about. They abused spiritual gifts for ego instead of edification; they sued each other before pagan judges about matters that could have been resolved among themselves; they indulged themselves in an insensitve, piggish, and disrespectful manner when they shared the lovefeasts; and they were proud of their tolerance of a brother shacking up with what we would call his "stepmother" in our times! Briefly, they were an utter mess, and needed to get right with God about more than a few things.
Many of these Christians had emerged from backgrounds in the mystery religions which might have made their flaws seem pretty conservative, considering their past. So, I think we do well not to overdo our disgust. Yet, from the standpoint of what the Holy Spirit told them through Paul, they needed discipline badly.
The statement of the Apostle regarding "until He comes" cannot be fairly read without the context of the whole Book, because of what he tells them in Chapter 10 about marriage. His advice that all of them who can handle the single life should do is absolutely preteristic, as he lets them know that his reason is due to "the present distress". He also insists that the reason is because the "time is short", and soon they will no longer be married anymore. This fits well with what our Lord taught about the resurrection that "they shall neither marry, nor be given in marriage, in the resurrection." This sounds to me that when we graduate from our natural life, we not be glorified as couples. We will live eternally in some manner as angels do. These 1st Century saints were told that they were close to the time when they would begin experiencing that.
Their time was short. THIS GROUP OF FIRST CENTURY CHRISTIANS would soon be changed. For this reason, many people in the church of the First Century would not be able soon to display the Lord's death any longer, as they would be meeting Him to receive their eternal reward, fully in agreement with what the Lord said, recorded in Matthew 16:27 and 28, about the fact some who were standing in His presence would not die until they saw Him coming, and then they would recieve their eternal rewards.
If this assessment is correct (I realize that more thorough studies have been done, so this merely scratches the surface), then it is my conclusion that there is no reason whatsoever for any Christian who comes into preterism to think that the continuing covenantal connection of Holy Communion is somehow inconsistent with the ending point for the First Century Corinthians. God bless!
|
| |
|
|
Average Score: 4
Votes: 1
 |
|
|
^^Go to Top -  E-mail to Friend -  Print -  View PDF -  Subscribe -  Comments RSS
Re: Church Issues from First Corinthians: Communion (Score: 1)
 by Starlight on Monday, October 09 @ 07:01:15 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Paul,
“Their time was short. THIS GROUP OF FIRST CENTURY CHRISTIANS would soon be changed.”
Wasn’t those still living “changed” legally or as Romans 8 says they were waiting for their adoption. Weren’t the living just like us today when we put on Christ, we are not taken immediately but at our own passing.
“would not be able soon to display the Lord's death any longer,”
Paul could you elaborate a little more on this point, and how it ties in with your conclusion as I am not following it properly perhaps.
Blessings
Norm
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: Church Issues from First Corinthians: Communion (Score: 1)
 by Virgil on Monday, October 09 @ 10:42:19 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Paul, we have this conversation about communion quite often here. The plausible answer is of course that "until" does not automatically mean that communion will end, in fact the statement implies that we will commune with Christ in his kingdom, so it seems to me that it will continue as a sort of ordinance for the Church.
Sure, there are disagreements over the wine, bread, cup type and whatnot, but those are too minute for me to actually care about. Unlike catholics, I don't really believe communion to be a salvific event, so I see it more as a symbol of becoming like Christ instead. |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Parker on Monday, October 09 @ 13:23:51 PDT
- by Virgil on Monday, October 09 @ 13:45:01 PDT
- by Parker on Monday, October 09 @ 13:52:26 PDT
- by Virgil on Monday, October 09 @ 14:30:51 PDT
- by Parker on Monday, October 09 @ 15:50:39 PDT
Re: Church Issues from First Corinthians: Communion (Score: 1)
by Duck on Monday, October 09 @ 11:16:45 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Paul,
As a Preterist I have heard this argument often. The word "Until" means a reversal of a previous condition, therefore, if the Lord has come why would we continue to celebrate the Lord's Supper. The fact of the matter is that "until", achris hou (Greek), does not always mean a reversal of a previous condition. Consider the following examples:
Acts 22:4 Paul persecuted saints “up to” or until death. The point of the until is not that Paul’s activity of persecution ceased after the saints died, but rather, that he persecuted saints “up to” the ultimate point, the point of finalization.
Hebrews 4:12 The word of God pierces “until” or “up to” the dividing of soul and spirit. The significance of the “until” is not that the piercing ceases and another condition prevails from that point on, rather the “until” has a finalizing significance. The piercing continues as far as possible. If there were any possibility of a deeper piercing, the process would continue.
Matt 24:38 The people of Noah’s day ate and drank “until” Noah entered the ark. The point of this assertion is not that a day came in which the people no longer ate and drank. Instead, the point is that they continued with their eating and drinking until their end arrived.
1Cor 15:25 Christ must reign “until” he has put all his enemies under his feet. The intended stress is not that a day will come in which Christ will no longer reign. Instead, the point is that he must continue reigning until the last enemy is subdued at the resurrection. Besides doesn't the Scripture say that Christ would reign forever?
We use the word "until" much the same way today. For example when I leave my home I tell my children to be good "until" I return. I can guarentee you I do not mean for them to start being bad upon my arrival. My focus is simply for them to be good in my absence not focusing on the state of affairs after my return.
Therefore the phrase "achris hou" brings matters “up to” a certain point, or “until” a certain goal is reached. The phrase does not determine in itself the precise state of affairs after the termination. Words must be defined in there context.
David
Atlanta, Ga.
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Virgil on Monday, October 09 @ 13:41:51 PDT
- by Kyle Peterson on Tuesday, October 10 @ 15:20:24 PDT
Re: Church Issues from First Corinthians: Communion (Score: 1)
by Starlight on Wednesday, November 01 @ 12:32:16 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Paul,
Just checking on you, hadn't heard from you in a while and missed you.
Norm |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
| 
|
