There is much division in Christendom about what the Lord's Supper is, for whom it is intended, and even what it should be called (Lord's Supper, Communion, Eucharist, an ordinance, a sacrament, etc.). Many Christian leaders use the Lord's Supper as a means of controlling the congregation. For example, some, such as conservative Anabaptist groups, consider it to be one of seven ordinances that must be practiced in order to go to heaven.
And (they say), to be allowed to partake of "Communion" one must be in good standing with the church---which includes being in agreement with all the teachings of the sect. If you are not in agreement then you cannot partake of Communion; and if you miss two or more Communion services for this reason then you are excommunicated; and if you die in an excommunicated state you will go to hell.
Some groups teach that the Lord's Supper (which they call the Eucharist or Communion) is a sacrament and is a means of obtaining grace and that one must continue to partake on a regular basis in order to maintain one's salvation.
Some believe that the elements (bread and wine) literally turn into the body and blood of Christ. Some believe that grape juice should be served instead of wine and vice versa. Some believe that only a bishop (pastor) should administer it, and some believe that an elder or even a deacon (and in some groups even a woman) can serve it.
Some believe that the Lord's Supper should be observed or administered or celebrated weekly, some monthly, some quarterly, or at other intervals. All these differences are just some of the variances in doctrines concerning this subject. But all these things mentioned above mean very little if we do not even know what the Lord's Supper is and who should be the participants.
The Lord's Supper is a memorial and a proclamation. Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of Me" (Lk. 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24). Having been instructed by Jesus, the apostle Paul wrote, "For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes" (1 Cor. 11:26).
Who should be the participants of this memorial and proclamation called the Lord's Supper? Only the brethren. It is unscriptural for women to participate in the Lord's Supper.
There were many women believers before Jesus died when He and His disciples ate the Last Supper. But Jesus did not include any of the women, only men.
Not even the wives of the apostles were present at the Lord's Supper.
When the apostle Paul wrote about the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians he addressed the brethren (adelphos) not the sisters (adelphe). The Spirit-inspired apostle wrote, "Moreover brethren [adelphos]...The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:1, 16). "Now I praise you, brethren [adelphos]...For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you. That the Lord Jesus the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said...this do in remembrance of Me...But let a man examine himself, and let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup...Wherefore, my brethren [adelphos], when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if anyone hunger, let him eat at home..." (1 Cor. 11:2, 23-28, 33-34).
The Greek word adelphe, translated "sister" or "sisters," is used more than twenty times in the New Testament, but it is not used in any passage or context in which there is teaching concerning the Lord's Supper. These scriptures are addressed only to the brethren.
Some wrest the Scriptures to teach that "brethren" means "sisters," too. But like so many other teachings, in these last days of apostasy, the enemy has perverted the true meaning and purpose and who should be the participants of the Lord's Supper.
Believers are not confused about the Lord's supper.
It's to show the Lord's death until He returns to earth and Reigns.
To remember His death, burial and resurrection. Jesus died on the cross for mankinds sins, so that we can have everlasting Life, when we put our hope and trust in Him alone.
There is no saving power in the Communion.
Only in knowing Jesus Christ as your personal Savior.
There are many false beliefs among people in the World.
The word communion is related to union. Communion is the result of a union with Christ, the sharing of common thoughts, feelings, and experiences. Sharing in the death and burial of the Son of God is a foundational part of salvation (Romans 6:3–5), and that death is symbolized in the ordinance of communion. If a person has no union with Christ, the act of taking communion has no significance (John 1:12; Romans 10:9–10). A person who has not been spiritually regenerated has no means by which to commune with God (Ephesians 2:3; Colossians 1:21). Therefore, an unbeliever taking communion is practicing hypocrisy, and it may place that person in danger of God’s judgment.
For a child of God to take communion in a state of unrepentant sin is another form of hypocrisy. “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” (1 Corinthians 11:27). Believers are to undergo a self-examination (verse 28) and so avoid God’s discipline in their lives (verses 27–30). Harboring sin in one’s heart, refusing to be reconciled to a fellow believer, or stubbornly resisting to acknowledge one’s need for forgiveness, especially given its availability (1 John 1:8–9), is a sign of a hard heart, not of “common union” with Christ.
According to the Bible, those who take communion must be humble, born again, free of unconfessed sin, and living in obedience to God. Whether or not living in obedience includes baptism in every case is something for individual churches to decide. For the converted, repentant sinner, the Lord’s Table is a welcome place of knowing God’s provision and resting in His grace
but there's no prohibition against female Christians taking communion
Dom claims: there's a prohibition against women receiving communion. She (Don) claims this so, QUOTE, “...because the scriptures say so as proven in the article of which you cannot refute with scripture.” END QUOTE
Dom, let me help, Harry’s article is clearly written by someone who has assumed the identity of “Harry Bethel”. The contents of the article merely state someone’s (Harry’s) uninformed opinion.
In fact, Harry Bethel’s opinion is about as ill-informed as your new found supporter FlatEarthTeddyBug’s unearthly opinions—perhaps even less so‼️ No doubt your FlatEarthTeddyBug supporter will find it gratifying that there’s at least one wanna teacher who is less informed.
Dom, at the very out set, Harry hardly bothered with even a rudimentary exegesis of a SINGLE verse of scripture‼️‼️‼️
Dom, unless you can demonstrate otherwise, Harry has little if any regard to a disciplined approach to scriptural interpretation‼️
Dom, don’t you find the total absence of a thoughtful and qualified critical analysis for at least ONE portion of scripture a bit alarming⁉️⁉️