# Private Worship and the Lords Supper



## Joseph Scibbe (Dec 11, 2010)

Is it Biblically permissable for a person/family to partake of the Table in a private worship environment?


----------



## Puritan Scot (Dec 11, 2010)

John Calvin in his *Short Treatise on the Holy Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ* insists that The Word ought always to accompany the sacraments. 
"The principal thing recommended by our Lord is to celebrate the ordinance with true understanding. From this it follows that the essential part lies in the doctrine. This being taken away, it is only a frigid unavailing ceremony. What is the water of baptism without The Word but just a corruptible element? The Word not as pronounced but as understood. By this the sacraments derive their virtue from The Word when it is preached intelligibly. Without this they deserve not the name of sacraments"


----------



## au5t1n (Dec 11, 2010)

Corinthians DIED from partaking of the Lord's supper in an inappropriate manner. Do people really want to "try this at home"?


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Dec 11, 2010)

austinww said:


> Corinthians DIED from partaking of the Lord's supper in an inappropriate manner. Do people really want to "try this at home"?


 
That was a rather arrogant way of not answering the question. There would be no trying. I see the Super being an important aspect of corporate worship and was wondering if there were any prohibitions to one partaking at home. I hadn't seen any but was curious as to what others might have seen.


----------



## au5t1n (Dec 11, 2010)

Unashamed 116 said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> > Corinthians DIED from partaking of the Lord's supper in an inappropriate manner. Do people really want to "try this at home"?
> ...


 
I was highlighting the danger of not being careful with respect to communion. It wasn't directed at you in particular, but to "people," i.e. folks who practice this. To answer the question more directly, I think you're unlikely to find a _prohibition_ for partaking at home, but rather you will find that all Scriptural references to communion are in the context of a church meeting, and we have no warrant to go beyond what is proscribed, or rather, exemplified. I hope that is more helpful.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 11, 2010)

> Westminster Confession of Faith
> Chapter XXIX
> Of the Lord's Supper
> 
> IV. Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other alone;[7] as likewise, the denial of the cup to the people,[8] worshipping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about, for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use; are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.[9]





> Scripture proofs
> 
> 7] 1CO 10:6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
> [8] MAR 14:23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. 1CO 11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
> [9] MAT 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.


.


> Chapter XXVII
> Of the Sacraments
> 
> IV. There are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.[10]





> [10] MAT 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 1CO 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 23 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. 1CO 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. HEB 5:4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Dec 11, 2010)

austinww said:


> Unashamed 116 said:
> 
> 
> > austinww said:
> ...


----------



## Andres (Dec 11, 2010)

Yes, I do think it to be inappropriate to receive the Lord's Supper in private. It was instituted for *corporate *worship and it must be administered by the minister. The other important thing to remember is that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper cannot be divorced from the preaching of the Word. The preaching of the Word does not occur in a private home setting (it is not the same thing as sharing a family devotional at home) so the sacraments cannot occur in private either. 



> WCF 29.1. Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein he was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of his body and blood, called the Lord's Supper, to be observed in his church, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of himself in his death; the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto him; and, to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other, as members of his mystical body.
> 
> WCF 29.3. The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to declare his word of institution to the people; to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation.


----------



## Edward (Dec 11, 2010)

I agree with Scott - it's covered by the 'Private Mass' provision.


----------



## seajayrice (Dec 11, 2010)

Andres said:


> Yes, I do think it to be inappropriate to receive the Lord's Supper in private. It was instituted for *corporate *worship and it must be administered by the minister. The other important thing to remember is that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper cannot be divorced from the preaching of the Word. The preaching of the Word does not occur in a private home setting (it is not the same thing as sharing a family devotional at home) so the sacraments cannot occur in private either.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Are there any Biblical references for this prohibition of the sacraments in the home?


----------



## Andres (Dec 11, 2010)

seajayrice said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I do think it to be inappropriate to receive the Lord's Supper in private. It was instituted for *corporate *worship and it must be administered by the minister. The other important thing to remember is that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper cannot be divorced from the preaching of the Word. The preaching of the Word does not occur in a private home setting (it is not the same thing as sharing a family devotional at home) so the sacraments cannot occur in private either.
> ...


 
C.J., I believe Austin put it best in his post above: "I think you're unlikely to find a prohibition for partaking at home, but rather you will find that all Scriptural references to communion are in the context of a church meeting, and we have no warrant to go beyond what is proscribed, or rather, exemplified." Also, as I mentioned the Lord's Supper cannot be divorced from the preaching of the Word.


----------



## Rich Koster (Dec 11, 2010)

Would it be considered wrong for elders to bring the elements to shut ins (hospital/nursing home etc...) as, for lack of better terms, an extension of corporate worship ? I am putting this in the context of members in good standing who are hearing the word from the elder(s) along with the presentation of the elements during the visitation. I am not putting this question in the context of people taking it upon themselves to prepare this on their own.


----------



## au5t1n (Dec 11, 2010)

Unashamed 116 said:


> I agree that there is oft a lack of reverence for the Table. But I would point pout the problem of the fact that it being practiced in the home is not found because infant baptism is not directly found in the NT and we see that as a Biblical direction. I apologize for being snippy at you.


 
No worries. I should try to be less dramatic. The connection to infant baptism is an interesting line of thought. One difference is that you can find passages which, debatably, exemplify infant baptism, but it is harder to find passages which might exemplify home communion, unless you see the references in Acts of breaking bread together as being strong enough evidence to warrant the practice. Personally, I find the infant baptism evidence to be much stronger, but others would disagree.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 11, 2010)

Here an old thread and poll from a year ago with some info.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/whe...can-choose-multiple-options-54420/#post703152


----------



## JP Wallace (Dec 11, 2010)

I believe there is positive textual prohibition of participation of the sacrament apart from the gathered church of Christ. These would be the two texts.

1 Corinthians 10:16, 17 “16 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? 17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.”

1 Corinthians 11:29, 30 “29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.”

What does Paul mean by "discern the Lord's Body"? Two things I believe, first we must discern the real spiritual presence of the Lord in the sacrament, but secondly (especially on the basis of 1 Cor 10:17) we must discern the spiritual unity of the Body of Christ - the Church. Therefore the only legitimate context for participation in the sacrament is where the Church can fairly and adequately be discerned. Could it be done therefore privately? - "No". Could it be done within a family? - "No" the family is not the Church. Could it be done with shut-ins etc. I would say in theory, possibly "Yes" so long as the Church or a sufficient "quorem" of the Church and authorised ministers are present. That said I think those providentially unable to participate in the public worship should content themselves that this is where providence has them. There is a danger of superstitious elevation of the sacrament.


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 11, 2010)

No.


----------



## Grimmson (Dec 11, 2010)

Rich Koster said:


> Would it be considered wrong for elders to bring the elements to shut ins (hospital/nursing home etc...) as, for lack of better terms, an extension of corporate worship ? I am putting this in the context of members in good standing who are hearing the word from the elder(s) along with the presentation of the elements during the visitation. I am not putting this question in the context of people taking it upon themselves to prepare this on their own.


 
That went on in the patristic period. And if elders couldn’t do it then deacons assisted in bringing the elements to the sick. The fact that we do not bring the supper to the shut-ins shows to me at least that we have a low view of the supper as a means of grace. They need to feed off the supper spiritually as much as the one that can attend church regurally on Sunday. If the issue or argument today is that it must be done in front of the congregation then a few more members of the church should assist the modern day pastor or elder.

---------- Post added at 05:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:04 PM ----------

The supper was done originally in peoples’ homes so that fact that it is in a home should not be an issue. I think the Supper should be allowed to be done in peoples’ homes, but should be done only by permission from your local pastor. He would want to know your theology of the Supper and how you were going to do it. And watching over your soul he has the right to know


----------



## lynnie (Dec 11, 2010)

I just pulled FF Bruce on Acts off the shelf. I'm no Greek scholar but he has acts 2:46 ( breaking bread from house to house) as "the Master's ordinance", and verse 42 "breaking of bread" as communion. If they did it house to house, who are we to argue with the first disciples? I would assume they did it as small gatherings, much like our midweek small groups today, but you can't prove that. It could have been individual households as well.


----------



## Rich Koster (Dec 11, 2010)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Here an old thread and poll from a year ago with some info.
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f67/whe...can-choose-multiple-options-54420/#post703152



Once again, thanks. I see that G.I.Williamson adds discipline being practiced also to my fore-mentioned conditions of acceptable practice.


----------



## seajayrice (Dec 11, 2010)

JP Wallace said:


> I believe there is positive textual prohibition of participation of the sacrament apart from *the gathered church of Christ.* These would be the two texts.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 10:16, 17 “16 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? 17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.”
> 
> ...


 
What constitutes the gathered church?


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 11, 2010)

To use the usual language, it is _most pernicious_ to celebrate the Lord's Supper in a private and informal setting. 

E.g. Our Apostle, the Apostle to the Gentiles, made a clear dividing line between formal and informal worship when he distinguished the informal worship of the agape feast from the formal worship of the Lord's Supper. A disregard of this distinction also leads to other problems regarding worship, because in a sense _everything we do is meant to be worship_, but only some of it is formal/public Worship.

At least one teaching elder and one ruling elder should be there, In my humble opinion, because the Session - being the successors of the Apostles in the Presbyterian sense of that expression - hold the Keys of the Kingdom, and can also suitably dispense the sacrament with the Word.

But I'm sure the wisdom of Presbyterian polity in various Reformed church manuals will have clear guidance on this.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Dec 11, 2010)

I would indeed say it was inappropriate for a family or small group to take it upon themselves to celebrate the Supper in a private setting for all the aforementioned reasons. I also disagree with the practise of couples taking communion in their wedding ceremony (1. because the're the only two participants and 2. because it is rarely preceded by the Word). 

Shut-ins are a different matter. I will gladly bring the Supper to the saints no longer able to come. But with it I will also bring the Word. The principle difference between this and taking it as a family or small group are 1) these saints _cannot_ attend the regular meetings of the church and 2) it is initiated and administered by the church's officers who have been especially called to perform this function. This, I believe, is an important part of our ministry to our elderly and invalids.


----------



## Edward (Dec 11, 2010)

Grimmson said:


> but should be done only by permission from your local pastor.



Under the Westminster standards, it can only be administered by a pastor.
" There are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained." 

The Baptist Confession seems almost as strict:

"These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ."

and 

"The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to a holy use, and to take and break the bread; to take the cup, and, they communicating also themselves, to give both to the communicants."


----------



## nnatew24 (Dec 11, 2010)

In addition to the many good things mentioned above, I would also add that the abuse of the Lord's Table mentioned in 1 Cor 11 (v17-22) are sins of individualism, partiality, superiority, and factions. And it seems very clear to me that partaking separately, in private, by definition makes one guilty of these particular sins. In other words, partaking in private comes close to or equals the very errors the Corinthians were making. 

When one partakes in private, they are excluding _someone_ by default. The are creating some sort of faction by default. They are being individualistic by default. They are preferring themselves over others by default.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Dec 11, 2010)

The observance of the Lord's Supper is governed by the Regulative Principle, being an element of worship. As such, we do not need an injunction forbidding a family observance, but a positive commandment enjoining it for families to observe (whatever is not commanded is forbidden). The contexts in which the Lord's Supper are explained in the New Testament are always in the context of public worship. (1 Corinthians 11, etc). The "breaking of bread from house to house" of Acts chapter 2 is no different--the Churches, (remember that there were 3000 who were added to the Church on the day of Pentecost) met in houses. We might understand this as "from house of worship to house of worship", or something similar.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Dec 12, 2010)

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> The observance of the Lord's Supper is governed by the Regulative Principle, being an element of worship. As such, we do not need an injunction forbidding a family observance, but a positive commandment enjoining it for families to observe (whatever is not commanded is forbidden). The contexts in which the Lord's Supper are explained in the New Testament are always in the context of public worship. (1 Corinthians 11, etc). The "breaking of bread from house to house" of Acts chapter 2 is no different--the Churches, (remember that there were 3000 who were added to the Church on the day of Pentecost) met in houses. We might understand this as "from house of worship to house of worship", or something similar.


 
Not true. 

Presupposing a person subscribes to the RPW I would say this ->The RPW governs the corporate worship service and the elements therein but not the elements in their strict sense. The RPW does not tell me what songs to sing on the car ride to work or what sermons to listen to when I am doing personal worship time.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Dec 12, 2010)

Dear friend, 
Presupposing that one adheres to the RPW is indeed a part of the confessional standards that govern this board. While there may be difference in how we apply the RPW, the principle itself is not at issue. To say the the RPW regulates only public, but not private worship is a misunderstanding of the purpose for the RPW. While there may be things appropriate to public worship that are not appropriate to private worship, *any* worship is service performed unto the Lord, and as such, regulated by his desires, and preceptive will revealed in Scripture. As for your other comments about the RPW not regulating what song (I assume you mean worship song) you listen to, or what sermon you choose to hear, such comments reveal a misunderstanding of the regulative principle. For instance, one ought not to offer "The Star Spangled Banner" to the Lord in public or private worship, no matter how meaningful a song to him it is. In the same vein, one ought not to listen to a motivational speaker and call it a sermon from the Word of God. The regulative principle is God commanding us that song offered to him is "worship song" apart from identifying a particular song, and hearing "preaching" of the Word, as opposed to the explication of say, Shakespeare. 

When you say that the RPW "governs the corporate worship service and the elements therein but not the elements in their strict sense", does that mean that in the corporate setting, a minister must be present, wine must be used, certain words of institution and sacramental actions employed, but that in private worship none of these things apply? I'm not being flippant, I simply don't understand your statement here. Does it, for instance mean that one could use kool-aid and potato chips in private worship because the elements are not governed in the strict sense in private worship as they are in public? I'm having trouble ascertaining your meaning here. 

Respectfully,


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 12, 2010)

Unashamed 116 said:


> Rev. Todd Ruddell said:
> 
> 
> > The observance of the Lord's Supper is governed by the Regulative Principle, being an element of worship. As such, we do not need an injunction forbidding a family observance, but a positive commandment enjoining it for families to observe (whatever is not commanded is forbidden). The contexts in which the Lord's Supper are explained in the New Testament are always in the context of public worship. (1 Corinthians 11, etc). The "breaking of bread from house to house" of Acts chapter 2 is no different--the Churches, (remember that there were 3000 who were added to the Church on the day of Pentecost) met in houses. We might understand this as "from house of worship to house of worship", or something similar.
> ...


 
Joe, 

The RPW does not tell you what songs to sing en route to work, certainly. It also doesn't tell you what to eat and drink for dinner.

HOWEVER, the Lord's Supper is not just any bread and wine. It is a set apart meal for the body of Christ to be partaken together. THAT is the
command we have in Scripture. You cannot simply say "we're going to do communion at home also. Not to take away from what we do as a
church on the Lord's Day, or anything.... the Bible doesn't govern how we take the Lord's Supper at home." 

That is, it seems, the essence of your discussion - but it's completely flawed. The elements of the Lord's Supper, the bread and the wine, have zero
meaning outside the gathered body of Christ other than their usual food and drink value. They are merely bread and wine outside the context of 
corporate worship.


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 12, 2010)

Unashamed 116 said:


> Rev. Todd Ruddell said:
> 
> 
> > The observance of the Lord's Supper is governed by the Regulative Principle, being an element of worship. As such, we do not need an injunction forbidding a family observance, but a positive commandment enjoining it for families to observe (whatever is not commanded is forbidden). The contexts in which the Lord's Supper are explained in the New Testament are always in the context of public worship. (1 Corinthians 11, etc). The "breaking of bread from house to house" of Acts chapter 2 is no different--the Churches, (remember that there were 3000 who were added to the Church on the day of Pentecost) met in houses. We might understand this as "from house of worship to house of worship", or something similar.
> ...



Another statement I've got to make at this juncture. That's a very, very strong statement from someone who started this thread ostensibly to
"ask a question" about whether it's permissible. 

You asked the question, and it was plainly answered. Now you're rebutting the answers because you seemingly already had a position on the matter.
To come forth "asking a question" and then verbally dispense with every answer that contradicts what you hold (but hid behind a question) is disingenuous at best.


----------



## KMK (Dec 12, 2010)

Unashamed 116 said:


> Not true.



You accused Austin of being 'arrogant' in his response to your question, but then you turn around and address an elder of Christ's church with this statement?


----------



## Grimmson (Dec 12, 2010)

nnatew24 said:


> In addition to the many good things mentioned above, I would also add that the abuse of the Lord's Table mentioned in 1 Cor 11 (v17-22) are sins of individualism, partiality, superiority, and factions. And it seems very clear to me that partaking separately, in private, by definition makes one guilty of these particular sins. In other words, partaking in private comes close to or equals the very errors the Corinthians were making.
> 
> When one partakes in private, they are excluding _someone_ by default. The are creating some sort of faction by default. They are being individualistic by default. They are preferring themselves over others by default.


 
I would not recommend as an overall normal principle a private Lord’s Supper because it is seen as a corporate activity in scripture, however there is even a excluding that takes place within the context of corporate worship. Those who cannot attend due to ill-health or by extraordinary situations are excluded and they need the Supper as a means of grace as much as those that attended the worship service. You are showing preference over the able bodied members of your church to the sick, perhaps dying, or those who car broke down on the way to church, or a believer who was just told a close family member was just taken to the hospital and they needed to show up at the hospital. Those who are homebound have a high probability of suffering from depression and many times do not receive regular visitation from their pastor. It is common for deacons to take up the slack in this situation. The Supper switches the focus of the homebound person or the ill from their self to Christ and his sacrifice. To refuse the means of grace, that God has given for his people, to a member in good standing is sinful on the part of the minister, because God commended that his people should practice it until the return of Christ. 

The way I would recommend the practice of the Lord’s Supper so that the corporate element is expanded to the sick and shut-ins is to put aside some of the bread and juice/wine that was set aside for the Lord’s Supper and prayed over. Talk to the individual; including how the person is doing, reading of the Word, points to your sermon, and prayer. Then offer sometime to the person the same bread and the same juice/wine that was given to the congregation. Using the same formula that was used for the congregation. This way a continuity of corporate worship is expanded and the minister does not need to throw away/pour down the drain the left-overs or eat/drink up what is left over sometime after the service depending on the tradition. It is the same meal that is given. This should be done by the pastor, but something may come up where he cannot perform this duty; in such extraordinary case something must be done. I would be willing to give temporary status to deacons for such service.

As for my earlier post, there were a few reasons why I said that should be done only by permission of the local pastor instead of just citing the confession. The first is because just citing a confession alone takes away from the pastor’s responsibility to be a pastor and understand why a person wants to conduct private Lord’s Supper. This is an opportunity for the pastor to teach and expound on why the confession says what it says within a normal context; shutins and the ill are not within the normal or ordinary context of worship. Secondly, there may be some counseling that needs to take place for those that may be a bit more sensitive and desire to enhance their spiritual experience, which would be a wrong usage of the supper due to the focus on the spiritual experience of one’s self outside of the body of Christ. Thirdly, if it is being done in a small group context this allows for pastoral oversight of what is going on within the church and the concerns and desires of such a group in which the pastor can then respond to. Now why did I say that it should be allowed in a person’s home, because scripturally and historically it was done in someone’s home and not a church building initially. This does not mean that the Supper should be taken individually, but instead in the context of church members being over after the Word of God is expounded and prayer is given.


----------



## KMK (Dec 12, 2010)

Grimmson said:


> Those who cannot attend due to ill-health or by extraordinary situations are excluded and they need the Supper as a means of grace as much as those that attended the worship service.



The question at hand is whether the Supper is a means of grace at all outside of corporate worship. Those who believe it is not are not excluding anyone from anything. In their minds they are protecting the sanctity of the Supper and the sincerity of the individual. If the Supper is an empty ceremony outside of corporate worship then those who are being excluded from it are actually being protected from hypocrisy. It all depends on your point of view.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Dec 12, 2010)

Todd, Todd, and Ken, (and all who read this). I apologize for the way I responded. While I understand the way I said what I said was inappropriate I would like to offer a reason for my statement. I was not meaning so much to argue with him but when I am working through something in my mind, there is often a part of me that offers up arguments that hold me to where I am. I meant not to be argumentative and proud but that is what my mind offered as a "road block". I was incredibly lack in my phrasing of the "question". I should probably just allow the discussion to continue without anymore interference. Again, I apologize for my poor attitude and would ask for the forgiveness of all who saw such un-Christlike behavior.


----------



## seajayrice (Dec 12, 2010)

Unashamed 116 said:


> Todd, Todd, and Ken, (and all who read this). I apologize for the way I responded. While I understand the way I said what I said was inappropriate I would like to offer a reason for my statement. I was not meaning so much to argue with him but when I am working through something in my mind, there is often a part of me that offers up arguments that hold me to where I am. I meant not to be argumentative and proud but that is what my mind offered as a "road block". I was incredibly lack in my phrasing of the "question". I should probably just allow the discussion to continue without anymore interference. Again, I apologize for my poor attitude and would ask for the forgiveness of all who saw such un-Christlike behavior.


 
 Praise God.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 12, 2010)

Rich Koster said:


> Would it be considered wrong for elders to bring the elements to shut ins (hospital/nursing home etc...) as, for lack of better terms, an extension of corporate worship ? I am putting this in the context of members in good standing who are hearing the word from the elder(s) along with the presentation of the elements during the visitation. I am not putting this question in the context of people taking it upon themselves to prepare this on their own.


 
This may have been addressed in some other posts above.

But, it is possible for the Lord's Supper to be administered to "shut-ins," for example. In the PCA, it requires notice to the congregation (public notice) at least one week in advance. That is, an invitation for others to join in.

There is no specific advance notice requirement in Scripture, only a principle that a sacrament is an ordinary ordinance of corporate worship, not of individual or family worship.

And yes, it must be administered by a minister of the gospel, with the Word attendant, and with proper discipline.

But, it can be administered in situations as you describe, with the requisite care.


----------



## KMK (Dec 12, 2010)

I think it is worth noting that there is no mention of a private Lord's Supper in the Directory for Family-Worship or in the Directory for Public-Worship.


----------



## MW (Dec 12, 2010)

1 Corinthians 11:22 seems decisive to me. "What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not?"

The apostle deliberately separates the Lord's Supper and the festive meal, reserving the Supper as a distinctive ordinance of the church and pointing to private residences as the appropriate place for the meal.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 13, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> 1 Corinthians 11:22 seems decisive to me. "What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not?"
> 
> The apostle deliberately separates the Lord's Supper and the festive meal, reserving the Supper as a distinctive ordinance of the church and pointing to private residences as the appropriate place for the meal.


Rev. Winzer, would this indicate that fellowship meals at the Church building are inappropriate?


----------



## MW (Dec 13, 2010)

Brad said:


> Rev. Winzer, would this indicate that fellowship meals at the Church building are inappropriate?


 
I don't think so; it just needs to be clearly distinguished from the stated service of the church.


----------



## jogri17 (Dec 13, 2010)

Could someone do this only just for NAPARC Churches?


----------



## nnatew24 (Dec 13, 2010)

Grimmson said:


> Those who cannot attend due to ill-health or by extraordinary situations are excluded and they need the Supper as a means of grace as much as those that attended the worship service. You are showing preference over the able bodied members of your church to the sick, perhaps dying, or those who car broke down on the way to church, or a believer who was just told a close family member was just taken to the hospital and they needed to show up at the hospital.



I believe there is a marked difference between those unable or providentially hindered from partaking, and the act of making the partaking private. If you partake within your family, you are actively refusing/limiting partakers to family members alone. Or, if someone else were invited, or someone else got wind of the practice and wished to participate, then you're dealing with a faction and a selection process of inviting some but not all.

But I would not deny that corporate participation excludes some. Certainly, those under discipline or who have yet to close with Christ are excluded. But there is no partiality shown above that of scriptural instruction and providential hindering. In the corporate setting, all who are fit and able are invited to partake. In a private setting, not all are invited to partake. So when partaking in private, a mode of inclusion/exclusion is practiced that is not supported by scripture.


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 13, 2010)

jogri17 said:


> Could someone do this only just for NAPARC Churches?


 
Can you clarify what you mean by that? Are you asking someone to answer the question in view of what the NAPARC church
standards are? If so, I think the question has already been answered. That is, private "communion" is no communion at all, and is
neither Biblically nor confessionally warranted. Certainly in circumstances where individuals are providentially hindered from being
able to attend the corporate gatherings wherein the Lord's Supper is celebrated, it is appropriate for the elders of the church to
bring the Supper to them, with members of the congregation - but this is not "private" in the sense of the original question.


----------



## Edward (Dec 13, 2010)

jogri17 said:


> Could someone do this only just for NAPARC Churches?



?


----------



## KMK (Dec 13, 2010)

toddpedlar said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> > Could someone do this only just for NAPARC Churches?
> ...


 
Weird. I think that post was originally placed in the Google map of EP churches thread.


----------

