Hi From Cincy

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I consider the doctrine that any denominational Lord's table is a valid gathering to be "unbiblical human wisdom" for the following reasons:

a) no denominational Lord's Tables mentioned in the bible. Their absence points to their invalidity.
b) the symbolism of the table ,bread and wine as One Body, precludes the existence of divisions aka a Lutheran table over there and a Baptist table over here.

The Jewish Passover, which is what the Lord's Table mirrors, essentially, symbolized the unity of the nation of Israel under God. In Judaism the Passover is the time when everyone forgets their differences and comes together. I do not see this reflected in denominational gatherings, every Sunday in a religion which supposedly is united "in spirit" despite choosing to meet separately in practice.

Finally, it is well known that denominations themselves invalidate each other's Lord's Tables. Protestant tables are deemed invalid to the Catholic, and vice versa in many cases. So, to say that all denominational table are invalid is really no different to the denominational attitudes already existing in Christianity.

But if we think this is all pleasing to the Lord to have different tables under different names, then by all means, support it, declare them all valid and acceptable to the Lord. And don't forget to include the Tables of the LGBT churches as well. We have to draw the line somewhere about what is valid and what is invalid. In today's day and age, it is becoming all too common to be served communion by a female priest with rainbow hair and a Buddhist tattoo, or in Beyonce worship or otherwise, as Drake pointed out a while ago. In what should be a blatantly obvious matter, that the table is not Christ's table, I cannot see that any amount of scripture could justify participating in such a thing.

Evan, your straw man argument is what is truly invalid. I am not speaking for any of these things you mention. Thank you for aquainting me with this form of deception, but I'll pass on participating in it with you. I know you have stated that this is a perfectly acceptable and legitimate form of argument....but kindly refrain for the sake of pursuing peace and holiness with the members of the body, which is of Christ.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Evan, your straw man argument is what is truly invalid. I am not speaking for any of these things you mention. Thank you for aquainting me with this form of deception, but I'll pass on participating in it with you. I know you have stated that this is a perfectly acceptable and legitimate form of argument....but kindly refrain for the sake of pursuing peace and holiness with the members of the body, which is of Christ.

The straw man was really when the topic of law and regulation was introduced which Ohio started and missed the topic about symbolism. I was talking about symbolism, Ohio introduced the topic of law/regulation, accused me of being a Pharisee, and then claimed that I "admitted scriptural truths". This whole line of argument from Ohio is a straw-man by definition.

I have not condemned anyone for their opinion, I have not condemned any denomination, there is no sentence I have written that anyone can quote to support such allegations. I have not even condemned StG's church for using wrong symbols and made no reference to any law or regulation that I know of regarding what symbols should be used.

To be clear, to take a legal approach would be to say "the scripture says we must use unleavened bread", when there is no such rule to my knowledge. This is the line of approach Ohio took, and misunderstood me. Rather, I am saying that "unleavened bread better represents Christ rather than leavened bread".

There is no scripture as you said, so it is really a matter of conscience and spiritual discernment. I believe it is acceptable to have differences of opinion on this matter. However, such symbols used might offend my or someone else's conscience, and the scripture says something about that.

Romans 14:15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The straw man was really when the topic of law and regulation was introduced which Ohio started and missed the topic about symbolism. I was talking about symbolism, Ohio introduced the topic of law/regulation, accused me of being a Pharisee, and then claimed that I "admitted scriptural truths". This whole line of argument from Ohio is a straw-man by definition.

I have not condemned anyone for their opinion, I have not condemned any denomination, there is no sentence I have written that anyone can quote to support such allegations. I have not even condemned StG's church for using wrong symbols and made no reference to any law or regulation that I know of regarding what symbols should be used.

Ohio only exposed LSM hypocrisy as evidenced by your posts condemning all of Christianity for doing their Table Bread wrong. I only pointed out the extreme legalism by which you judge the body of Christ for laws and regulations surrounding the breaking of bread while remembering the Lord.

Read the posts on this thread. You said "leavened" bread was indicative of "divided" Christianity when it is only you who condemns other churches for doing their Table Bread "wrong." Then I went to the Scripture to point out how LEAVEN in the bread pointed to malice and evil in the hearts of the participants towards other members of the body of Christ. This was evident in Corinth and more than evident in those LSMers who divided all the Ohio churches.

Go back to Post #16. Apparently you are just numb as to your own judgments of other Christian churches. I am just pointing it out, and taking the time to steer you to the truth. Obviously you don't read what I write, so I write for others. Did you not say, "Some of the bread is leavened, and some of the bread is unleavened, so this is a symbol of division as the bread is not all the same?" How in the world can physical leaven be a symbol of division?

These symbols on the Table are just that. We should never use them to condemn others, as LSM is want to do. The remembrance of the Lord is everything, the style of bread insignificant, the actual contents of the cup inconsequential. LSM pays great attention to these symbols, yet neglects weightier matters like examining our hearts, brotherly love, and true oneness.

For a ministry like LSM, which devotes so much attention to the detailed significance of typology, they sure missed the boat with the Lord's Table. These are just symbols. The Bible has no commands regarding them. The only command is to "DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME." There are no two churches in history which did this identically. If the Lord or the Apostles had demanded an exact prescription for these symbols, they would have provided us with detailed specifications.

Witness Lee himself, when questioned on this topic, said specifically, "the better the picture, the better the reality." I could not disagree more! The age of "pictures" is over. Types, figures, shadows, symbols, etc. are all characteristic of the Old Covenant. Christ has come! He is the fulfillment of all these pictures. Today we need only Him. Today we worship in spirit and reality.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Ohio only exposed LSM hypocrisy as evidenced by your posts condemning all of Christianity for doing their Table Bread wrong. I only pointed out the extreme legalism by which you judge the body of Christ for laws and regulations surrounding the breaking of bread while remembering the Lord.

Read the posts on this thread. You said "leavened" bread was indicative of "divided" Christianity when it is only you who condemns other churches for doing their Table Bread "wrong." Then I went to the Scripture to point out how LEAVEN in the bread pointed to malice and evil in the hearts of the participants towards other members of the body of Christ. This was evident in Corinth and more than evident in those LSMers who divided all the Ohio churches.

Go back to Post #16. Apparently you are just numb as to your own judgments of other Christian churches. I am just pointing it out, and taking the time to steer you to the truth. Obviously you don't read what I write, so I write for others. Did you not say, "Some of the bread is leavened, and some of the bread is unleavened, so this is a symbol of division as the bread is not all the same?" How in the world can physical leaven be a symbol of division?

These symbols on the Table are just that. We should never use them to condemn others, as LSM is want to do. The remembrance of the Lord is everything, the style of bread insignificant, the actual contents of the cup inconsequential. LSM pays great attention to these symbols, yet neglects weightier matters like examining our hearts, brotherly love, and true oneness.

For a ministry like LSM, which devotes so much attention to the detailed significance of typology, they sure missed the boat with the Lord's Table. These are just symbols. The Bible has no commands regarding them. The only command is to "DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME." There are no two churches in history which did this identically. If the Lord or the Apostles had demanded an exact prescription for these symbols, they would have provided us with detailed specifications.

Witness Lee himself, when questioned on this topic, said specifically, "the better the picture, the better the reality." I could not disagree more! The age of "pictures" is over. Types, figures, shadows, symbols, etc. are all characteristic of the Old Covenant. Christ has come! He is the fulfillment of all these pictures. Today we need only Him. Today we worship in spirit and reality.

The facts speak for themselves really. Post #22 is the first post in this thread that raised the matter of regulations and ordinances and that post was from yourself, when I never raised the matter or stated that there was any scripture that says we must do this or do that. This is only a sign of your legalistic mind and eating from the tree of knowledge.

You are only embarrassing yourself further to continue your line of argument that I condemned the whole body of Christ and raised the matter of regulations, when you have already acknowledged that we agree on the matter of regulations and ordinances (that there is none to speak of).

On the matter of symbols - it is a bit hard to remember Christ if the symbols do not represent him. Imagine remembering a person at a funeral with a picture of another person than the one who died, or remembering a country by using the wrong flag - it simply does not happen. Yet it seems that people are comfortable with symbols that do not represent Christ as well as they could.