TheOldCourse
Puritan Board Sophomore
I recently heard a minister, speaking on the Lord's Supper, use 1st Corinthians 11:26 to encourage church members to bring unbelievers to church on days on which the Lord's Supper is administered. He argued that as a visible proclamation of the Gospel it is a helpful means of illustrating and presenting Christ and his benefits to unbelievers who may be present in addition to comforting those who do believe.
This raised, for me, some questions regarding Reformed sacramtentology--specifically that of the Lord's Supper being a confirming rather than a converting ordinance. He was comfortable with the Lord's Supper being a converting ordinance in its exhibition but not in its participation (i.e.: the table should still be fenced). Can we bifurcate the purpose of the ordinance in such a way? Keeping the table fenced avoids some of Gillespie's objections to William Prynne and others who would view it as a converting ordinance for participants, but it seems like some of the objections still hit home. Particularly Gillespie argues (Aaron's Rod Blossoming, Book 3 Ch XIV) that the converting application of Christ in the Word is of a different nature than the confirming application of Christ in the sacrament. He also argues against Prynne who claims that conversions may occur by application of Christ to the eye (in the sacrament) as well as by ear (in the preaching of the Word) which seems to be the very argument being here considered.
What think ye? Is it proper to invite unbelievers to the celebration of the Lord's Supper in hopes that they will be converted? How are we to view it as "shew[ing] the Lord's death till he come" in this sense?
This raised, for me, some questions regarding Reformed sacramtentology--specifically that of the Lord's Supper being a confirming rather than a converting ordinance. He was comfortable with the Lord's Supper being a converting ordinance in its exhibition but not in its participation (i.e.: the table should still be fenced). Can we bifurcate the purpose of the ordinance in such a way? Keeping the table fenced avoids some of Gillespie's objections to William Prynne and others who would view it as a converting ordinance for participants, but it seems like some of the objections still hit home. Particularly Gillespie argues (Aaron's Rod Blossoming, Book 3 Ch XIV) that the converting application of Christ in the Word is of a different nature than the confirming application of Christ in the sacrament. He also argues against Prynne who claims that conversions may occur by application of Christ to the eye (in the sacrament) as well as by ear (in the preaching of the Word) which seems to be the very argument being here considered.
What think ye? Is it proper to invite unbelievers to the celebration of the Lord's Supper in hopes that they will be converted? How are we to view it as "shew[ing] the Lord's death till he come" in this sense?