Closed Communion Across the Centuries – A Quick Look at Resolution 5-15

ElevateLutheran Church–Missouri Synod Convention proposed Resolution 5-15, titled “To Address Questions re the Sacrament of the Altar,” addresses open Communion, infant Communion, and intinction (a practice which my spell check has never heard of). It can be found in Today’s Business, Proposed Resolutions on page 86; or on In part, it reads “Resolved, That the LCMS reaffirm that its statements and resolutions with regard to close(d) communion, as noted above, are faithful to Scripture and the Confessions.” The historic practice of the LCMS and the practice of Christ’s Church since the time of the Apostles has been that of close(d) Communion. 5-15 is a good resolution that addresses reoccurring problems in the LCMS.   Here’s a sampling of quotes on closed Communion across the centuries for your review. All brackets are in the originals.


Ignatius of Antioch, 110 A.D.

Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ – they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church – they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.1

Justin Martyr, 2nd century

This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us.2

Augsburg Confession, XXIV, 36; 1530

“Chrysostom says ‘that the priest stands daily at the altar, inviting some to the Communion and keeping back others.’ ”3

Martin Luther, 1534

…Although also the Gospel holds Christians together, the Lord’s Supper does so still more. By attending it every Christian confesses publicly and for himself what he believes. There those who have a different faith (die Ungleichen) part ways, and those meet who have the same faith (im Glauben gleich sind), whose hope and heart toward the Lord are one (einerlei).

This is also the reason why the Sacrament has been called Communio in Latin, a communion. And those who do not want to be of the same faith, doctrine, and life, as other Christians are, are called excommunicatis, people who are dissimilar in doctrine, words, understanding, and life. Therefore these should not be tolerated in the group that has the same understanding; they would divide it and split it up. The Holy Sacrament, then, serves as a means whereby Christ holds His little flock together.4

C. F. W. Walther, 1870

And now consider what a grievous sin those commit who administer Communion to those who are, after all, of another faith and confession, and confess themselves to be one and brothers with them.

1 Cor. 11:20: “Now when you meet together, it is not eating the Lord’s Supper.” Here the apostle rebukes the fact that he Corinthians celebrated Communion without putting into practice in love the fraternal fellowship in faith that is thereby declared. One therefore sees also here that Communion should be a bond of fellowship in worship. All should indeed come to preaching, but only Christians who confess the proper Christian faith with their mouth should come to Communion. Therefore one who goes to Holy Communion in a Lutheran church declares openly before the world: I hold with this church, with the doctrine that is preached here, with the faith that is confessed here, and with all the confessors who belong here. The pastor who administers the Sacrament to him declares the very same thing. (p. 215)

We would be sinning dreadfully, you see, if we wanted to hold ourselves separate from all other fellowships only out of mere blind preference or taste. But this division and special position is the command of God and therefore necessary. We may not draw the heterodox as such into our fellowship, as our opponents in the Church Council do and want to justify, and thereby become guilty of a grievous sin. And we for our part will endure the cross that is simply inseparable from our special position—the slanders of our enemies and even the unjust accusations of our erring fellow Christians—all the more joyfully and willingly, the more we remain mindful in faith of the high and holy purpose that God has revealed to us in His Word for the separation of His New Testament church from the world. (p. 219)

Thesis X

Holy Communion is also a mark of confession of the faith and doctrine of those with whom one celebrates it. Therefore the admission of members of heterodox fellowships to the celebration of Communion within the Lutheran church is in conflict with:

  1. Christ’s institution;
  2. The commanded unity of the church in faith and corresponding confession;
  3. Our love for the one to whom the Sacraments is administered;
  4. Our love for our own fellow believers, especially the weak, who by this action would be given grievous offense;
  5. The command not to become participants in the sins and errors of others. (p. 220)

All altars on which Holy Communion is celebrated should bear the following distich attached [to them]:

Cui non mens eadem, cui non confessio simplex, Hanc mensam vetitam noverit esse sibi!

“That is, ‘One who does not have the same faith and one and the same confession, let him know that this table is forbidden to him.’ ” (Cases of Conscience, pp. 594 f.) (p. 221)

A schismatic is one who has separated himself from the church—not indeed because of a fundamental article—but still because of teaching or certain adiaphora. We cannot give the Sacrament to such a one either.

Therefore, to refuse a Reformed person admittance to our Communion is certainly a work of true love, and woe to him who will not perform it. (p. 223)

One sees that the old theologians believed precisely in the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. That is why they also proceeded in its administration so carefully and conscientiously according to God’s Word.   Our present-day softhearted Lutherans who proceed so liberally might well examine themselves [to see] if they themselves also really have the right faith regarding the Sacrament. (p. 224)5

Francis Pieper, 1920

Christian congregations, and their public servants, are only the administrants and not the lords of the Sacrament. The Lord’s Supper is not their institution, but Christ’s. Therefore they must follow Christ’s instructions in administering the Sacrament. On the one hand, they are not permitted to introduce “Open Communion” on the other hand, they must guard against denying the Sacrament to those Christians for whom Christ has appointed it. (p. 381)

Therefore Walther (Pastorale, p. 146f.) is right in holding that by practicing “Open Communion” a pastor becomes “an unfaithful, careless, and unscrupulous shepherd.” (p. 385)

In vain is love, or charity, appealed to in defense of “Open Communion.” The fact is that this practice is contrary both to love of God and love of the neighbor, for it ignores that the Sacrament of the Altar must be properly used, as prescribed in Scripture, and it leads the neighbor to sin by partaking unworthily of the Sacrament. (p. 385-86)

…The pastor must nevertheless rather suffer removal from office than give the Lord’s supper to a person to whom, according to God’s Word, he must deny it. (p. 390)6

D. H. Steffens, 1925

Show me a Lutheran Church body which makes no effort to safeguard the Lord’s Table and I will show you a Church body sunken in doctrinal confusion and indifference. Show me a Lutheran Church body earnestly striving to safeguard the Lord’s Table against the approach of impenitent sinners or “heretics and fundamental errorists” (General Council, Pittsburg, 1868) and I will show you a Church body earnestly striving to hold fast “The form of sound words” and “the faith once delivered to the saints.” (p. 38)

…A failure to safeguard at any price whatsoever, the Table of our Lord is a confession on the one hand of doctrinal uncertainty and indifference, of liberalism and latitudinarianism; and, on the other, a blow struck at the whole system of Lutheran doctrine, aye, at Him who is its very source and centre, Christ our Lord Himself. It is more than a mere failure to properly appreciate a precious possession; more than a mere act of timid disloyalty, it is a treacherous opening of the entire fortress to the enemy. (p. 40)

What then is done by the ministers who receive all without exception? They show themselves to be unfaithful, frivolous stewards of the mysteries of God; they interfere with the office of God the Lord and life, upon themselves to be lords of his holy sacrament, when they are but its servants. Woe unto them to time and eternity, if they do not betimes, bethink themselves. A day will come when they will have to make terrible payment for having wasted the goods of their Lord and misused them for their own corrupt ends. Then will the Lord call them and say unto them: How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest no longer be steward.” Luke 16, 1. 2. (p. 46) 7

Werner Elert, 1954

The modern theory that anybody may be admitted “as a guest” to the Sacrament in a church of a differing confession, that people may communicate to and fro in spite of the absence of full church fellowship is unknown in the early church, indeed unthinkable. (p 175)

By his partaking of the Sacrament in a church a Christian declares that the confession of that church is his confession. Since a man cannot at the same time hold two different confessions, he cannot communicate in two churches of differing confessions. If anyone does this nevertheless, he denies his own confession or has none at all. (p 182)8

John T. Pless, 1993

While we may not presume to judge the faith of another, the Scriptures do call us to judge between varying confessions of the faith (see Romans 16:17). In practicing closed communion, we are not entering into a judgement concerning the saving faith of individual members of other churches. We rejoice over all those who have saving faith in Jesus Christ. Fellowship at the altar is not established by faith in the heart but by sharing in a common confession of faith anchored in “the Gospel preached in conformity with a pure understanding of it and that the sacraments administered in accordance with the divine Word” (Augsburg Confession VII,2-3; Tappert, The Book of Concord, p.32).Without agreement in “doctrine and all its articles” (Formula of Concord X,6; Tappert, The Book of Concord, p.616) there is no fellowship, no oneness in the “holy things” of Word and Sacrament.

We are painfully aware of the barriers that outwardly divide Christ’s people and we pray week after week in the Divine Service “For the well-being of the Church of God, and for the unity of all.” It is a cause of great sadness that all Christians are not yet united in God’s Word and therefore are unable to receive Christ’s body and blood together. Where there is no unity in the Word, there can be no unity in the Sacrament.9



  1. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, “The Early Christians Believed in the Real Presence,” Real Presence Eucharistic Education and Adoration Association, (09 June 2016).
  1. Justin Martyr, First Apology, Ch. 66, “The Early Christians Believed in the Real Presence,” Real Presence Eucharistic Education and Adoration Association, (09 June 2016).
  1. John Chrysostom was Archbishop of Constantinople in the 4th to 5th centuries.
  1. From a sermon on 1 Cor. 11:23-26. Ewald M. Plass, compiler, What Luther Says: A Practical In-Home Anthology for the Active Christian (St. Louis: CPH, 1959) §2521, 812.
  1. Essay presented to the 15th Western District Convention titled “Theses on Communion Fellowship with the Heterodox.” C.F.W. Walther, Essays for the Church, Vol. 1 (St. Louis: CPH, 1992).
  1. Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, Vol. III (St. Louis: CPH, 1950).
  1. D. H. Steffens, “Safeguarding the Lord’s Table,” Reports of Proceedings of the Fifty-second Convention of the Eastern District of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and other States (St. Louis: CPH, 1925).
  1. Werner Elert, Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries, trans. Norman E. Nagel (St. Louis: CPH, 1966).
  1. What Your Eating and Drinking at this Altar Confess” (Minneapolis: University Lutheran Chapel, 1993).


Image credit: Ding Digital Photography on flickr; Creative Commons license 2.0.

About Scott Diekmann

Scott is a lifelong LCMS layman. Some of his vocations include husband, dad, jet driver, runner, and collector of more books than he can read. Oh, and also chocolate lover. He’s been involved in apologetics for over a decade, is on the Board of Regents at Concordia Portland, and is a column writer for the sometimes operational Around the Word Journal. He’s also written for Higher Things Magazine, The Lutheran Clarion, and has been a guest on Issues Etc. as well as the KFUO program Concord Matters.


Closed Communion Across the Centuries – A Quick Look at Resolution 5-15 — 28 Comments

  1. Although Resolution 5-15 references several overtures, significant Resolved statements of these overtures were stripped away. For example,

    Overture 5-11, To Reaffirm Standard for Pastoral Admission to Lord’s Supper: Full Agreement in All Articles of Christian Doctrine (2016 CW, p. 347), which

    Resolved, That the LCMS reaffirm that the standard for pastoral admission to the Lord’s Supper is full agreement in all articles of Christian doctrine.

    Also Overture 5-15 To Standardize Admission to the Lord’s Supper (2016 CW, p. 349, submitted by Trinity Lutheran Church, Evansville, IN, Rev. Dr. Martin Noland, pastor) had a Resolved statement to add the following to Article VI of the LCMS Constitution:

    3. Congregations and pastors shall admit to the Lord’s Supper only persons who are communicant members in good standing of Synod congregations or who are communicant members in good standing of Lutheran congregations in altar fellowship with the Synod. Exceptions to this rule may be made by pastors or chaplains in cases of
    (1) imminent death—or the possible threat of the same,
    (2) emergency,
    (3) war,
    (4) severe illness,
    (5) intense personal crisis, or
    (6) individuals who are in a “state of confession”;
    but only for Lutherans who were at some time communicant members of a Lutheran congregation. In such cases, the pastor or chaplain shall make an examination of such person’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper prior to communing him or her, if that is possible.

    Resolution 5-15 encourages completion of a CTCR document on intinction, but otherwise refers to past resolutions and CTCR documents on infant and toddler (read “Early”) communion, communion cards, and DP oversight of pastors’ administration of the Lord’s Supper. Such past documents didn’t resolve the open (or early) communion problems back then and it’s unlikely that just referring back to them will resolve the problems now. Putting Article VI teeth in ecclesiastical supervision especially to bite errant DPs is probably the best way to work toward a real solution.

    And requiring an unqualified subscription to the Book of Concord of 1580 as the standard for admission to the Lord’s Supper in Lutheran churches reenforces the Galesburg Rule.

  2. Is there really any question that the LC-MS position is already “closed communion”? Is this resolution somehow required to enforce closed communion? Is this really an open question? I’m puzzled.

    I guess I’m concerned with this sort of resolution in principal because we shouldn’t be voting on doctrine to start with. The precedent this sort of resolution sets is that, while we as a Synod hold and practice closed communion, we do so provisionally. It is not an unalterable part of the warp and weft of our fabric, and if in three years a majority of the synod in convention decides to commune Baptists, ELCA Lutherans (or pets for that matter) then that will become the official position our Synod.

    What we need in lieu of endless 60%-40% doctrinal votes in convention is a president willing to enforce orthodoxy and orthopraxis w/in the Presidium, and a Presidium willing to enforce orthodoxy and orthopraxis w/in their districts.

    A 60%-40% voted orthodoxy is a rented orthodoxy. Even if we win, Confessionals are pleating the whip that will be used on our own backs when the split changes to 49%-51%.

    -Matt Mills

  3. “What we need in lieu of endless 60%-40% doctrinal votes in convention is a president willing to enforce orthodoxy and orthopraxis w/in the Presidium, and a Presidium willing to enforce orthodoxy and orthopraxis w/in their districts.”

    Bingo! And not only do we get endless convention resolutions, but also tap-dancing reports from the multi-year (if not multi-decade) Koinonia Project, like this excerpt from the “Harmony Final Report” (Task Force for Synodical Harmony Report to the Board of Directors and Council of Presidents, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, March 2, 2011, p. 3):

    Inability to Deal with Diversity. While most (not all) presenters agreed that our church is blessed with amazing concord in matters of doctrine, all recognized that we see diversity among us in practices. These practices relate to such issues as; admission to Holy Communion, worship substance and style, the Office of the Public Ministry and the role of laity, and the service of women in the church. Some of these practices are closely tied to our doctrinal beliefs—hence a concern among some of our presenters about unhealthy ‘doctrinal diversity’ in the Synod. Others are simply a matter of tradition and preference. Holding high the values of preserving uniformity and tradition, we have not learned how to address diversity among us—whether it is perceived to be ‘doctrinal’ or ‘non-doctrinal.’ The same difficulty with diversity is apparent in the lack of inclusion in leadership positions experienced by women, ethnic minorities, and the young.”

  4. Oh, and there’s Resolution 12-07 To Clarify Definition of Dissent (TB, First Issue, 2nd version, p. 161), which states:

    “When, then, a member of the Synod in such forums as “blogs, Facebook pages, and email pages publicly teaches and advocates that a doctrinal position of the Synod as stated in a resolution of the Synod is in error and does not use the Synod’s dissent procedures, he/she/it may no longer be honoring and upholding the constitution, bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod and could thereby be subject to a charge of false doctrine” (CCM Opinion 13-2665).”

    Resolution 12-07 then resolves to replace Bylaw 1.8 with this wording:

    “The discussion [for dissent from the doctrinal position of the Synod as expressed in its resolutions and doctrinal statements] among the fellowship of peers is to be conducted privately and confidentially among those who are competent, rather than a public forum.”

    If Resolution 12-07 passes, synod members, particularly those who are also part of the ACELC, could not discuss on Lutheran blogs their confessional opposition to the Synod allowing Early [before confirmation, down to post-natal] Communion, or the Synod’s A&P fellowship with Lufauxran church bodies holding quatenus subscriptions to the Book of Concord of 1580, or the Purple Palace’s waffling statements on congregations sponsoring BSA troops, or the Koinonia Project’s pandering to heterodoxy, etc.

    Nor could there be a blog article like Rev. Winter’s Too Busy for Business, which discusses a never-acted-on Wyoming resolution, “To Caution the Congregations of the Wyoming District regarding certain errors at the Saint Louis Seminary.”

  5. @Matt Mills #2
    Dear Matt,

    I agree with what you say, I do not like voting on doctrine, we have it.
    Application and practice of the doctrine…we have issues.

    I guess like my issue with Richard, I do do affirm closed communion, albeit, my comments on practice are questioned.

    Hmmm, is Richard, aka “Carl” voting?

  6. @Matt Mills #2: “I guess I’m concerned with this sort of resolution in principal because we shouldn’t be voting on doctrine to start with.”

    The Missouri Synod convention doesn’t vote on doctrine. It even says so in Article VIII.C: “All matters of doctrine and of conscience shall be decided only by the Word of God.” What the convention does decide on by vote are resolutions which support the stated doctrine of the Missouri Synod. This is through doctrinal resolutions and statements.

    Doctrinal resolutions must conform to the confessional position of Article II and may be adopted for the information, counsel, and guidance of the membership.

    Doctrinal statements also set forth the Synod’s doctrinal position in Article II, especially in controverted matters, in greater detail. Such statements involve a series of reviews by various synod entities, require 2/3s vote by the convention and require 2/3 vote by member congregations. And since the system is not fool-proof, the doctrinal statements may be repealed by following the same requirements.

  7. @Carl Vehse #4

    The former administration would have liked to muzzle the blogs and pages which informed the laymen as well as the pastors (except their own, of course). It’s sad that such resolutions are still sent and it would be sadder still if they were approved.

    Clergy and laity need more information, not less, about what’s going on. To be patted on the head (with a gavel, yet!) and told “the COP will take care of it” is not reassuring.

    That is, in fact, what we’re afraid of!

  8. @helen #7: “It’s sad that such resolutions are still sent and it would be sadder still if they were approved.”

    Actually no congregation or district sent in an overture anything like Resolution 12-07. That resolution was spawned from Report R65, Section G. To Clarify Definition of and Limits to Right of Brotherly Dissent (2016 CW, p. 306ff) by the Task Force on Dispute Resolution:
    Rev. Dr. George Gude (Commission on Constitutional Matters, Commission on Handbook),
    Rev. Dr. Raymond Hartwig (Secretary of the Synod),
    Rev. Dr. Richard Nuffer (Commission on Handbook), and
    Judge Neely Owen (Commission on Constitutional Matters).

    They, in turn took the text from CCM Opinion 13-2665 (August 9–11, 2013, CCM Minutes, p. 379, Para. 230. “Fellowship of Peers”), where the CCM opined on the following two questions:

    Question 1: “Given the new developments in electronic media, which allow people to share their ideas publicly on the internet, what is the meaning of ‘fellowship of peers’ in Bylaw 1.8.2? With everything that goes on in Synod, with Blogs, Facebook pages, email groups etc. proliferating within Synod what constitutes ‘Fellowship of Peers?’ Is it confined to specific groups? Is it limited to Pastor’s conferences, Districts and Synod in Convention, Official LCMS gatherings, RSO gatherings, etc.?”

    Question 2: “Furthermore, given that many laity have advanced university degrees in theology and other academic disciplines (something that was not the case within the LCMS when it was founded in the nineteenth century), are they included within a pastor’s or professor’s ‘fellowship of peers’?”

  9. @helen #7

    Here’s a portion of the opinion on Question 2: “Advanced degrees in theology and other academic disciplines by the Synod’s laity, while perhaps more prevalent today than previously in LCMS history, have always been a part of Lutheran church history and our Synod. Martin Luther, a member of the clergy, had his respected friend and member of the laity, Philipp Melanchthon. C.F.W. Walther, a member of the clergy, had his respected member of the laity, Carl Eduard Vehse. Luther discussed points of theology with Melanchthon, as did Walther with Vehse.”

    First, it’s curious that, while three of the four Task Force members used “Dr.” as a title, and while referring to advanced degrees and the names of four Lutherans, the two names that did have earned academic doctorates were not referred to as “Dr.”

    Second, Huh? What?!

    In what other part of the galaxy is the planet where the relationship and discussion between Martin Luther and his “respected friend Philipp Melanchthon” is comparable to the relationship and discussion between C.F.W. Walther and Dr. Carl Eduard Vehse during the short time that Walther and Vehse were together as two of the Missouri Saxon immigrants?!?

    Perhaps one of the members of the CCM should have borrowed a copy of Walter Forster’s Zion on the Mississippi or Dr. Carl Eduard Vehse’s Stephanite Emigration to America (it’s in the seminary libraries, if not the International Center) to find out what the actual relationship and discussions between Vehse and the Missouri Saxon pastors were during those few months before Vehse returned to Germany.

    Also, since the CCM opined in the same minutes about Walther’s Kirche und Amt, one might have expected in this opinion some mention of Walther’s Thesis X on the Ministry, which had been previously stated within the second, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh rights of a congregation in Dr. Vehse’s 1839 Protestationschrift.

    Resolution 12-07 should be voted down for the historical ignorance of 13-2665 alone.

  10. After reading all of the comments to Pres. Harrison’s prayer posted after the Orlando massacre, there are far more stretching issues in our Synod than Closed Communion. The diversity in communion practice throughout the Synod is symptomatic of the diversity of some basic fundamental beliefs about God, Scripture, sin, the Law, grace, salvation, and eternal life, not to mention what The Eucharist is, what Baptism is, etc.

    I was literally in tears when I read some of the comments to his prayer, and I’m only assuming that most of the respondents were LC-MS laity (but a good assumption). At one time Evangelical Lutherans were big on education — teaching the people from birth to death. Now we have “social justice” warriors filling our pulpits and our pews, and division as a result.

    Fixing the Communion statements or the bylaws won’t fix this problem! If we as a Synod don’t get a handle on our doctrine (and I don’t mean at national conventions or through the seeking and calling out of heretics), we’re going to become the next ELCA, but only worse. While I appreciate Harrison’s desire to do just this, making resolutions isn’t going to change much. Fixing our problems doctrinaly in our Synod is going to come with prayer, confession and absolution, and through kindling relationships with our fellow pastors (and with patience). Do you know of a pastor in your circuit who nudges the line of heterodoxy? Don’t shun him or avoid him; talk to him, have lunch with him and befriend him. Our goal isn’t to be legalistic about all this, but to deal with it with the Gospel at heart. If you can win over such a pastor, then he can, with even more zeal toward orthodoxy, go about returning his congregation to a better place too. As it is, most of those pastors or laity who are heterodoxy’s mistress would be beside themselves if one of us “right-wingers” walked up and said “hi, wanna do lunch?” rather than trying to find some worldly, legal method to deal with them.

  11. A prayer after the terror attack in Florida. (from our SP)
    Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, we pray to You for the many shattered lives after this horrific shooting. Have mercy, Lord, have mercy. We know that it is the thief who comes only to steal and kill and destroy but Your Son came that we might have life and have it abundantly. Comfort in Your kindness all who grieve and let them find in You the only source of peace and forgiveness and eternal hope. Grant healing to those who have been injured and are receiving medical care. We pray You to bring an end to such sad moments in our national history. We ask this in the name of Him who bore our every sin to death on the cross and who rose in triumph over the grave, even Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.

  12. Not a bad prayer….and I agree, some of the comments, DISGUSTING…but that is what you get from some very legalistic people who have a hard time finding their heart for the Gospel.

  13. @Carl Vehse #15

    Sounds like the kind of people who need prayer, Carl, (along with the rest of us and our country).
    It would appear that the “disgusting” comments have been removed, (or I’m reading the prayer on a different page)?

  14. I chuckled to myself that your spell checker never heard of “intinction”, then wondered if in 1925 Steffen’s typewriter gave him any grief over “latitudinarianism”. Incidentally Swype got as far as “latitudinarian” before giving up (!)

  15. @helen #16: Sounds like the kind of people who need prayer, Carl, (along with the rest of us and our country).

    Yes, and in this massacre by an islamoterrorist, the roots of which goes back half-a-century (if not back to the Crusades) to the infamy of Teddy Kennedy (in addition to his murder of Mary Jo), it seems now there is something else we can do, as noted in this BJS post.

  16. Perhaps I am being overly simplisitc, but there should be something like this in the church government:

    -confessional Lutherans (LCMS, WELS, etc) are to practice closed communion
    – those who refuse to practice closed communion are to either repent or renounce alliance with confessional Lutheranism

    It really should be that simple.

  17. @J. Dean #19
    Sad, but it is not that simple, we do (only speaking for LCMS, not in fellowship with WELS, etc.) advocate closed communion, the practice of the pastor is questioned, especially what is exceptional.
    Our Rev. President in the NID affirmed at pastoral conference our adherence.

  18. @Pastor Prentice #20


    President Gilbert affirms the NID’s adherence to the doctrine of closed communion, but in practice many of its members do not affirm their adherence to this doctrine. I trust He is working to restore these members. Sadly though it seems almost impossible to change the hearts and minds of sinful human beings, but with God all things are possible. I pray that the Holy Spirit will bring repentance, and I pray the Church will have the wisdom and faithfulness to properly use the keys for those who persist in rejecting God’s word.

  19. Just asking, but which disciples were “Lutheran”? They all took communion, correct.
    They were believers in the “faith”, Jesus was who he was, and God is who HE is. That Jesus died for all our sins, HE said this was HIS body and blood shed for our sins, and we as believers of that, we are all of one FAITH. Those that believe in HIM will have everlasting life. The only way to salvation is through JESUS, that is what HE says. I think you are missing the “faith” question. Faith is not Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist…. I think it is FAITH in JESUS CHRIST and what is true from Him.

  20. @Mark Anderson #22

    Faith is not Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist….

    Part of “faith in Jesus Christ” is believing what He said, don’t you think? Regarding the Supper, one and three don’t. Regarding “Lutherans” who practice open communion, apparently they don’t believe Paul?

    J.Dean #19 You must be a lay man!

  21. @J. Dean #19: “those who refuse to practice closed communion are to either repent or renounce alliance with confessional Lutheranism.”

    Overture 4-29, To Call for Members with Confessions Contrary to That of the Scriptures and Lutheran Confessions To Leave Synodical Union Voluntarily, resolved to request such Lufauxran members do just that.

    It was derailed in the Omnibus Overture “Circular File” with the remark, “Already addressed by Synod Constitution.”

    Duh! I guess police departments can be eliminated because we already have laws addressing crimes.

  22. @Carl Vehse #25

    Duh! I guess police departments can be eliminated because we already have laws addressing crimes.

    After last night, prospective police officers may be wondering if ‘the badge’ is worth it.

  23. @helen #26

    On his show today Rush Limbaugh interviewed Heather McDonald, author of The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe.

    MacDonald pointed out that a policeman is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black attacker than an unarmed black person being killed by a policeman.

    A July 14, 2015, Reporter article noted, LCMS, partners break ground for Ferguson ‘Empowerment Center’. Perhaps the LCMS will break ground with partners in Dallas for an ‘Empowerment Center’ for the families of the five police officers killed and seven others wounded.

  24. You are seemingly trying to change the subject . There were none. There were only followers of Christ. That is the point. Why limit communion to only Lutherans. If the person believes the Jesus Supper brings God’s blessings , grace, and forgiveness to Hispeople , working in our lives, and this is a special gift that we receive joyfully , which works together with the Word of God to strengthen “faith” in Him, forgive sins and offer eternal life why can’t they be afforded the gift.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.