Does "Baptist" Mean to a Baptist What "Recovery" Means..

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Thanks. That seemed pretty thoughtfully conveyed.

So, okay, let's say I'm just meeting with a group of Christians. We are all pretty young and simple in the Lord - just wild & youthful Jesus lovers. We have read "Do this in remembrance of Me" in the Bible and have decided to do that. We believe we are one with every Christian in the area we meet (and the rest of the world), because that's what the Anointing within tells us. And others come from different groups from time to time, and just take the bread and wine with us. Everyone enjoys the one Spirit together and are filled with His love. Very pure & enjoyable fellowship results.

Then let's say there is a group meeting in the city. Let's say Scottsdale, on the ground of oneness (who for legal purposes the state calls "The Church in Scottsdale"). The ones in the first group know of this Scottsdale Church gathering. They have fellowship and take the table together. They enjoy the one Spirit. They are filled with Christ's love for each other.

And they all feel free to take the bread and the wine in various places, as the occasion arises, because the Spirit tells them they are one with all believers.

Is there anything divisive going on?

Taking bread and wine in various places, are these "various places" denominations? If so that sounds divisive.

Going back to a biblical example. Suppose all the 12 disciples are gathered with Christ ready to celebrate the Passover. On this occasion, John says he can't join them because he has to go and celebrate Passover with the Pharisees (a denomination of Judaism). Peter also cannot attend because he is celebrating Passover with the scribes (another denomination). They all love Christ and the Spirit tells them they are "one with all the Jews". And maybe the Scribes and Pharisees joined Christ and disciples for Passover as well sometimes.

A practical problem with people coming from anywhere to the Lord's Table is that you have no control over the meeting. Any drunkards, fornicators, or revilers could come and take the Lord's Table and then depart never to be seen again. This happens often in denominations where fornicators, homosexuals and all will go from church to church and take communion anywhere they please.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Taking bread and wine in various places, are these "various places" denominations? If so that sounds divisive.

Going back to a biblical example. Suppose all the 12 disciples are gathered with Christ ready to celebrate the Passover. On this occasion, John says he can't join them because he has to go and celebrate Passover with the Pharisees (a denomination of Judaism). Peter also cannot attend because he is celebrating Passover with the scribes (another denomination). They all love Christ and the Spirit tells them they are "one with all the Jews". And maybe the Scribes and Pharisees joined Christ and disciples for Passover as well sometimes.

Are there verses that directly connect the Lord's table with the teaching of oneness? In order to take the table properly, must we all agree we are one & also not be divisive in our practice (e.g., denominations)? I'm not sure where specific passages are that would back that up . . .

So it might sorta sound good, but please show me in case I've missed those references.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Are there verses that directly connect the Lord's table with the teaching of oneness? In order to take the table properly, must we all agree we are one & also not be divisive in our practice (e.g., denominations)? I'm not sure where specific passages are that would back that up . . .

So it might sorta sound good, but please show me in case I've missed those references.

Rendered "one loaf", the Greek that Paul implies this one loaf brings about a kind of unity between those who partake of it:

1 Cor 10: 16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.


The situation in Corinth as I understand it, was that some believers (rich ones probably), where consuming all the food they had brought and leaving none for the poor. This caused strife and division, factions, between different groups, so the Lord's table was a place of strife not unity. At this point, we can note that they were still one church, the poor or the rich factions did not think about starting their own denominational meeting at this stage. To solve this problem, they could have, and Paul no where sanctions this Paul no where says , "ok, different factions separate, make your own church and have your own Lord's Table in your own way".

1 Cor 11:17-20 17 But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part,[a] 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Rendered "one loaf", the Greek that Paul implies this one loaf brings about a kind of unity between those who partake of it:

1 Cor 10: 16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.


The situation in Corinth as I understand it, was that some believers (rich ones probably), where consuming all the food they had brought and leaving none for the poor. This caused strife and division, factions, between different groups, so the Lord's table was a place of strife not unity. At this point, we can note that they were still one church, the poor or the rich factions did not think about starting their own denominational meeting at this stage. To solve this problem, they could have, and Paul no where sanctions this Paul no where says , "ok, different factions separate, make your own church and have your own Lord's Table in your own way".

1 Cor 11:17-20 17 But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part,[a] 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat.

Here is an interesting thing concerning the oneness, that came from Harry Foster, a close co-worker of T. Austin Sparks for 40 years. Bro Foster gave this at Spark's passing ceremony in 1971:

The Cross is not only painful, it is unifying. Brother Sparks believed and preached that by it the individual believer is not only led into an enlarging personal enjoyment of resurrection life, but also into a true integration into the fellowship of the Church which is Christ's body. He could never think of himself as an isolated Christian, nor of assemblies as isolated groups, but he tried to keep before him the divine purpose of redemption, which is the incorporation of all believers into vital membership of the one body. It has sometimes happened that Christians most anxious to express this oneness have yet contradicted its spirit by being betrayed into an attitude of superiority towards other Christians, so allowing themselves to be wrongly divided from their fellows in Christ. We here have had to confess our own failures in this respect, realizing that our very eagerness to be faithful to the Scriptural revelation of what the Church ought to be may have unintentionally produced something of a separateness among the people of God. If brother Sparks at times tended in this direction, he certainly moved farther and farther away from it as he came nearer to eternity, being growingly careful to show a proper appreciation of all true believers, whatever their connection.

Interesting that Sparks appeared to be saying (via Foster) that the oneness had more to do with the cross taking care of personal and internal divisiveness rather than adhering to something external.

Over and over recently I've been pointed back to the reality of this - all things we think we need to come up with, are actually in Christ (i.e., rather than something I need to get myself worked-up to do). In other words, turning to Him and experiencing His life in us is ALL those things we need - including oneness. It's not some external practice that I think makes sense (even from scripture). This is the New Covenant . . . not the letter, but the power of His indestructible life in and through us.

I think Sparks had it right.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Here is an interesting thing concerning the oneness, that came from Harry Foster, a close co-worker of T. Austin Sparks for 40 years. Bro Foster gave this at Spark's passing ceremony in 1971:
Interesting that Sparks appeared to be saying (via Foster) that the oneness had more to do with the cross taking care of personal and internal divisiveness rather than adhering to something external.

Over and over recently I've been pointed back to the reality of this - all things we think we need to come up with, are actually in Christ (i.e., rather than something I need to get myself worked-up to do). In other words, turning to Him and experiencing His life in us is ALL those things we need - including oneness. It's not some external practice that I think makes sense (even from scripture). This is the New Covenant . . . not the letter, but the power of His indestructible life in and through us.

I think Sparks had it right.

He seems to be talking about the invisible reality but what about the practical? It's easy to be one with other believers, we only have to say and believe we are, even if watch church TV. But practically how? The visible reality should match the invisible reality. The external practice of meeting together should be the practical expression of the reality.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

He seems to be talking about the invisible reality but what about the practical? It's easy to be one with other believers, we only have to say and believe we are, even if watch church TV. But practically how? The visible reality should match the invisible reality. The external practice of meeting together should be the practical expression of the reality.

Forcing the outward practice won't make the inward a reality in anybody. It's a form - empty unless it's filled with the Reality. The reality of the indwelling Christ is what is important.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Forcing the outward practice won't make the inward a reality in anybody. It's a form - empty unless it's filled with the Reality. The reality of the indwelling Christ is what is important.

If what you say is true, then Paul would not have to instruct them about oneness, because they were all Christians, they all had the indwelling Christ. They did not have to wait for some inward feeling to meet together. Paul no where writes that we should only meet together if we have the inward reality. Paul seems to be saying they should meet together in unity because they are all one in reality.

Using marriage as an example, suppose a couple got married, and chose to live apart. This would say something about the marriage, regardless of how much inward loving feeling they have for each other. Married people live together because they are married. Call it "forced outward practice" if you will, but it's done because it is expected.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Rendered "one loaf", the Greek that Paul implies this one loaf brings about a kind of unity between those who partake of it:

Thanks for the verses. The "one loaf" is symbolic. Cuz they could be "coming together" in all the churches, in the different cities, and homes, and breaking bread of "the one loaf," all at the same time, and in different places.

I knew a preacher that would take "the table" to those in the hospital, some that wanted it before they die.

I think it's a matter of the heart. Doesn't Paul instruct us to examine ourselves?

My complaint about this ritual, is that it wasn't intended to be a ritual, but a meal together. Like a Love Feast.

Hey! I remember having some pretty wild Lord's Table in the LC ; with bread being passed like a football, and jugs of wine sloshing on the floor, by John Ingalls, no less.

I once asked that preacher what he thought the eternal purpose of God is, and how do we partake in it. He answered, "We can't know the eternal purpose of God. We're not Got. But we can partake in it by having a meal together." I was impressed. He and I became close friends. His church, Disciples of Christ, had a love feast every Sat. nite. I wasn't very churchy back then. I went a few times. It reminded me of the LC ... SCARY!!!.