# The RPW and weekly communion



## MOSES (May 16, 2008)

There are many who hold to the Regulative Principle of Worship and yet deny the validaty of weekly communion...(e.g., RPCNA supprt RPW but only have communion 4 times per year)

I see an inconsistency in that position.

The RPW is based on Sola Scriptura...that is good, BUT . . . as in all doctrinal positions it should be based on TOTA SCRIPTURA as well. Basing your position on the scripture alone is good, but basing your position on the scripture alone and the "whole" or all of scripture too is even better.

So the RPW should be based on sola scriptura and tota scriptura.

Tota scriptura and the RPW as it relates to this topic comes into play here:

A study of worship in the whole bible brings one to the conclusion that there is a "heavenly pattern" of worship. In this pattern from Old Testament through New Testament we see things repeated again and again in worship...AND...one of the key elements in this pattern is:

The covenant meal, or peace offering, or partaking of the sacrifice.

When this part of the heavenly pattern of worship is neglected, then worship is NOT complete...for the pattern is consistent in scripture and when we depart from that pattern then we depart from true worship, we are acting contrary to the RPW when doing such things.

Here is some examples of the consistency of this pattern found in scripture where partaking of a "meal" is part of the worship service.
- Worship in eden before the fall. Adam and Eve heard the word of God, responded in faith and obedience and partook of the tree of life (meal).
- Exodus. Israel offers burnt offerings. Moses reads the book of the covenant. People respond in faith. AND Isael partakes of the peace offerings(meal)
- Dedication of the temple. Assembly for worship. Sin is dealt with in burnt offerings. Israel enters God's presence. Singing. Word of God proclaimed. Prayer. Fire consumes the sacrifice and glory fills the temple. Israel partakes of peace offerings (meal)
- Book of Rev. Assembling for worship (ch 4). Sin offering (ch. 5) Entering God's presence (ch 5). Psalm of praise (ch 5). Reading the word of God, prayers, fire consuming sacrifices and glory filling temple, psalm of praise (read the whole book you'll see it all)...and finally, the peace offering or the "meal" wedding supper of the lamb (meal)

A short study of worship in the Torah will also show that a partaking (eating) of the sacrifice was essential for the worship service...
note: the torah was based on the heavenly pattern.
note: the nt book of Revelation is a picture into heaven itself and you see the SAME pattern.

Also: The meal is essential in Christ making the new covenant

*The meal is essential to RPW.*


note: Peter J. Wallace has a good article on this. He is an OPC pastor...but he does not deal with the RPW or weekly communion only the heavenly pattern itself.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 16, 2008)

In the RPCNA communion frequency is a matter of liberty. Some RP's do have weekly communion.


----------



## MOSES (May 16, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> In the RPCNA communion frequency is a matter of liberty. Some RP's do have weekly communion.



Thank you for the correction. It is the same in the OPC as well.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 16, 2008)

Now those that do are few in number mind you and all three RP Prof's I have had at RPTS are against weekly communion...


----------



## ADKing (May 16, 2008)

You may find this thread interesting: http://www.puritanboard.com/f19/reasons-denying-his-sheep-lord-s-supper-30013/

This topic was debated at much length (6 pages!). I commend Rev. Winzer's (armourbearer) very helpful contributions to your consideration.


----------



## MOSES (May 16, 2008)

ADKing said:


> You may find this thread interesting: http://www.puritanboard.com/f19/reasons-denying-his-sheep-lord-s-supper-30013/
> 
> This topic was debated in much length (6 pages!). I commend Rev. Winzer's (armourbearer) very helpful contibutions to your consideration.




Ok Adam. I thank you for the thread and have read through a lot of it, but I believe I have brought in a sligtly different twist to the arguments..(unless I have missed something, please correct me)...now...where do you stand? ......


----------



## AV1611 (May 17, 2008)

ADKing said:


> I commend Rev. Winzer's (armourbearer) very helpful contibutions to your consideration.



There are a number of problems with Rev. Winzer's argument, the major problem is that the same logic he applies against weekly communion could be applied against weekly preaching. In refering to the WLC teaching on preparation for the Supper he writes, "Does the congregation as a whole undertake to engage in this kind of spiritual exercise every week -- not only mature Christians, but the weak also? If not, it ought to be received less regularly rather than less spiritually." Well let us look at the WLC's teaching on preparation for the preached word:

*Answer 160:* It is required of those that hear the Word preached, that they attend upon it with diligence, preparation, and prayer; examine: What they hear by the Scriptures; receive the truth with faith, love, meekness, and readiness of mind, as the Word of God; meditate, and confer of it; hide it in their hearts, and bring forth the fruit of it in their lives.​
Well "Does the congregation as a whole undertake to engage in this kind of spiritual exercise every week -- not only mature Christians, but the weak also? If not, it ought to be received less regularly rather than less spiritually." The answer is obvious!

The NT clearly mandates a weekly communion by example and necessary inference (Acts 20:7).


----------



## JohnOwen007 (May 17, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> The NT clearly mandates a weekly communion by example and necessary inference (Acts 20:7).



Dear AV, for the record I actually am a fan of weekly communion. However, I'm not sure that you can use Acts 20:7 to prove that believers are bound to weekly communion. What do I mean?

[1] Just because we find believers doing something (in Acts 20:7) it does not mean that we are bound to do the same thing. The descriptive is not necessarily the prescriptive. Paul also shaved his head in Acts ...

[2] The phrase "break bread" (in Acts 20:7) means to eat a meal. This is clear 4 verses later (in v. 11) when they break bread again (to eat). The Jewish way of referring to eating a meal was to "break bread". The host of the meal at the beginning would take piece of bread and break it, and thank God for the food. It is also clear in Acts 27:35 where believers and unbelievers engage in the breaking of bread.

I don't think Scripture prescribes how often we should have communion exactly. We must work with theological principles that arise from the purpose of the Lord's Supper.

Where Scripture isn't explicit we move into the real of wisdom. (Let me recommend Payne and Jensen, _Guidance and the Voice of God_ on this point).

Blessings dear brother.

Marty.


----------



## AV1611 (May 17, 2008)

JohnOwen007 said:


> However, I'm not sure that you can use Acts 20:7 to prove that believers are bound to weekly communion.


Thanks for your input Marty,

In Acts 2:42 the phrase "breaking of bread" clearly means the celebration of the Lord's Supper by the context. Indeed, the Syriac version renders it as "of the eucharist". Later in that same chapter the phrase "breaking bread" comes up but this time the context is less clear as to whether it is refering to the Lord's Supper or whether it is refering to common meals. But then we also know that it was common practice of the early Christians to have a common meal and then celebrate the Lord's Supper at its end, a practice Paul ends in 1 Corinthians 11. 

In Acts 20:7 the Syriac version renders it, "to break the eucharist" and the Arabic version renders it, "to distribute the body of Christ". Further, the timing of this meal was not a general meal but we are told it took place "upon the first day of the week" which is when the Christians came together to worship God.

I therefore find your argument that Acts 20:7 does not provide an example commending weekly communion less than convincing.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 17, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> ADKing said:
> 
> 
> > I commend Rev. Winzer's (armourbearer) very helpful contibutions to your consideration.
> ...



Thanks for pointing out the inconsistencies of Presbyterian traditionalism Richard. I have asked many Presbyterians (and remember I am a Presbyterian) to open the Bible and show me how the practice of bi-annual communion (or less) can possibly be Biblical. Needless to say I am still waiting. 

It is also strange that so many Presbyterians criticize others for having "holy days", yet what exactly are their communion "seasons". Surely the idea of having a special season to observe the sacrament is every bit as unbiblical, and a violation of the RPW, as man-made holy days?


----------



## AV1611 (May 17, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> It is also strange that so many Presbyterians criticize others for having "holy days", yet what exactly are their communion "seasons". Surely the idea of having a special season to observe the sacrament is every bit as unbiblical, and a violation of the RPW, as man-made holy days?



I did contemplating pointing that out but thought better of it. But I am glad that I am not the only one who sees the "communion seasons" to be on thin ice somewhat. 

I have celebrated the Lord's supper weekly since Sept 2004 (bear in mind I was converted in Dec 2003) and I couldn't express how much my spiritual life has been helped by this.


----------



## MOSES (May 17, 2008)

JohnOwen007 said:


> Dear AV, for the record I actually am a fan of weekly communion. However, I'm not sure that you can use Acts 20:7 to prove that believers are bound to weekly communion. What do I mean?
> 
> [1] Just because we find believers doing something (in Acts 20:7) it does not mean that we are bound to do the same thing. The descriptive is not necessarily the prescriptive. Paul also shaved his head in Acts ...



I agree...

That is why we need more then just the example of NT believers. We need to ask "why" did they break bread weekly.

in my opinion, the answer to that is "the heavenly pattern of worship". The NT church did not "envent" partaking of the sacrifice and fellowship meal. That was given by God from heaven. The pattern throughout scripture is consistent. Worship involves a peace meal, partaking in the sacrificial meal.

Whenever we worship then, we must follow the SAME pattern. That is the real RPW, following the pattern that God gave from heaven. If we fail to follow that pattern, have we failed to worship God according to the RPW?

Again...we don't do it because NT believers did it...rather they did it because it was given to them to do, and us too.

eg. It is like household baptism. The Apostles did not invent household baptism. We do not baptize households just because believers in the book of Acts did. Rather, they were following the commandment of God, they were following the pattern that was given from heaven when God commanded the covenant sign be given to Abram and his whole household. The apostles were simply following that same tradition given from heaven to Abram.

We don't do what the apostles did just because they did it...or like John said "Paul shaved his head"...should we follow that example as well?


----------



## JohnOwen007 (May 17, 2008)

Dear AV,

The clearest evidence of a (perhaps) weekly celebration of the Lord's SUpper is 1 Cor. 11:20. However, we're not explicitly told that this was a weekly gathering, only that when they came together they had the Lord's Supper (it's highly likely there were smaller gatherings outside this one).

But 1 Cor. 11:20 shows that the Lord's Supper was regular--none of this once, twice, or four times a year.



AV1611 said:


> In Acts 2:42 the phrase "breaking of bread" clearly means the celebration of the Lord's Supper by the context. Indeed, the Syriac version renders it as "of the eucharist".



I'm not sure that reasoning works:

[1] The Syriac (and Arabic) renderings (as you know) are not inspired Scripture, but the later translations. They aren't necessarily going to be a reliable indication of the meaning of the phrase. The meaning of the phrase is be found in its usage _at the time_ rather than in later translations. Later translations tell us what later people thought. It is clear from later in Acts that "breaking bread" was fundamentally a meal. So we need good evidence against this in Acts 2.

[2] Meaning lies in the direct context, and there's nothing in the direct context to suggest it was the Lord's Supper.

[3] Maybe "breaking bread" (in Acts 2) was a communal meal that _perhaps _at some point included the Lord's Supper. However, there's no way we can say that for certain. We can't just appeal to 1 Cor. for this, because the Gentile mission hadn't begun yet (and we can't assume that the ritual was identical).

[4] Moreover, to make the same point again, why is Acts 2:42 a blueprint for church life? It tells us what happened, it doesn't say this is what we must do. The Christians in the early chapters of Acts still used rites from the Torah, but that doesn't mean we should do the same. Remember: descriptive is not necessarily prescriptive.

In other words the evidence is just _too_ slim to build an argument from Acts 2.



AV1611 said:


> In Acts 20:7 the Syriac version renders it, "to break the eucharist" and the Arabic version renders it, "to distribute the body of Christ".



And this shows how wrong the Syriac and Arabic translators were. The direct context (of Acts 20:7) is _crystal clear_ that it was a meal. It _may've_ included the Lord's Supper but there's _no way_ we can prove that. So we can't assume it. We need other evidence.



AV1611 said:


> Further, the timing of this meal was not a general meal but we are told it took place "upon the first day of the week" which is when the Christians came together to worship God.



Sorry to be a pain here, but you're again bringing assumptions to the text. We must be careful to see what it actually says:

[1] Acts 20:7 as well as the rest of the NT *nowhere* says that believers gathered to "worship God". That's a phrase that gets perpetuated from generation to generation but it doesn't come from Scripture. The purpose of the NT gathering was edification (1 Cor. 14:26; Heb. 10:24-25).

[2] Just because believers met (in Acts 20:7) on the "first day" of the week (and it's very likely that believers couldn't take that day off, especially the slaves, hence that's why they met at sunrise, or after work), it doesn't necessarily bind believers to do the same now. Hermeneutics is critical here.

NT narrative must be read and interpreted carefully.

God bless AV.


----------



## dannyhyde (May 17, 2008)

JohnOwen007 said:


> [3] Maybe "breaking bread" (in Acts 2) was a communal meal that _perhaps _at some point included the Lord's Supper. However, there's no way we can say that for certain. We can't just appeal to 1 Cor. for this, because the Gentile mission hadn't begun yet (and we can't assume that the ritual was identical).



Marty,

What do you make of Acts 2:42 saying . . . "breaking of _the_ bread," as the article is used, while in 2:46 the noun is anarthrous?


----------



## JohnOwen007 (May 17, 2008)

dannyhyde said:


> What do you make of Acts 2:42 saying . . . "breaking of _the_ bread," as the article is used, while in 2:46 the noun is anarthrous?



At best it _may _indicate that the Lord's Supper was included with a meal. However, the article may well indicate it was simply a set meal for believers rather than a more general meal (so Acts 27). In other words, the evidence is too slim to make a case for the Eucharist. We need something more concrete.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 17, 2008)

JohnOwen007 said:


> dannyhyde said:
> 
> 
> > What do you make of Acts 2:42 saying . . . "breaking of _the_ bread," as the article is used, while in 2:46 the noun is anarthrous?
> ...



Yes. It also proves too much. Acts 2:42 would actually argue for _daily_ communion, rather than weekly communion.

I wonder if a simple series of questions would help:

Would you consider a church a real church if they did not have weekly communion? Would you consider a church a true church if they did not have weekly preaching (say once a month, or once a quarter)? What is the difference? Does that tell us something about the nature of the Lord's Supper?


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist (May 17, 2008)

Thanks for pointing out the inconsistencies of Presbyterian traditionalism Richard. I have asked many Presbyterians (and remember I am a Presbyterian) to open the Bible and show me how the practice of bi-annual communion (or less) can possibly be Biblical. Needless to say I am still waiting. 

It is also strange that so many Presbyterians criticize others for having "holy days", yet what exactly are their communion "seasons". Surely the idea of having a special season to observe the sacrament is every bit as unbiblical, and a violation of the RPW, as man-made holy days?[/QUOTE]


I think I have entered the twilight zone when I find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with Daniel!
My background is the Free Church of Scotland and the congregation I was a member of had communion twice yearly. We had the usual round of preparatory services. Now, in one sense it was a wonderful time of teaching and fellowship. The congregation excel at having fellowship time . But there was no biblical warrant for the practice. They were holy days by another name.

This is slightly but do you think the reason for the continuing infrequency of communion has to do with many Presbyterains taking a memorial only view of the Supper?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 17, 2008)

> I think I have entered the twilight zone when I find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with Daniel!





Your spot on about communion seasons being "holy days by another name".


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 17, 2008)

How would that provide for daily communion? (As the Papists and Episcopalians do?)


----------



## AV1611 (May 18, 2008)

fredtgreco said:


> Acts 2:42 would actually argue for _daily_ communion, rather than weekly communion.



Hi Fred, 
I don't think you are right here. Not least because, as I noted above, there is a difference between the "breaking of bread" in verse 42 is the Lord's supper whereas in verse 46 the "breaking bread" is likely a common meal. That is, they are not refering to the same thing. 

There is also the issue of whether the term "daily" in verse 46 is to mean "every day" or whether it is refering to "every day that they met".

There is also the issue that even if you are correct that verse 46 is referring to the Lord's supper and daily means "every day" Luke tells us later in Acts that the practice changed to it being celebrated weekly. The RPW would then mean that we take the latest practice as being prescriptive, i.e. the latter trumps the former.

So, I would suggest that your argument has a number of creases that need to be ironed out. 

Calvin notes that verse 42 is the Lord's Supper whilst verse 46 is a common meal:
*Verse 42:* "And my reason why I would rather have breaking of bread to be understood of the Lord’s Supper in this place is this, because Luke doth reckon up those things wherein the public estate of the Church is contained."

*Verse 46:* "_Breaking bread from house to house._ Luke signifieth unto us, that they did not only show some token of true godliness publicly, but that the course and tenor of their private life was alone in that respect. For whereas some do think that in this place, by breaking of bread is meant the Holy Supper, it seemeth to me that Luke meant no such thing. He signifieth, therefore, unto us, that they used to eat together, and that thriftily."


----------



## JohnOwen007 (May 18, 2008)

Dear AV,

I'm a little concerned about the way you're reading Scripture. It seems to me that you're reading _into_ the text prior ideas (_eisegesis_), rather than reading _out of_ the text what's really there (_exegesis_).



AV1611 said:


> I don't think you are right here. Not least because, as I noted above, there is a difference between the "breaking of bread" in verse 42 is the Lord's supper whereas in verse 46 the "breaking bread" is likely a common meal. That is, they are not refering to the same thing.



I don't know if you read my comments above but there is no way we can draw such a confident conclusion from Acts 2:42. It just simply isn't explicitly in the text. It seems to me you're reading prior commitments into the text.



AV1611 said:


> There is also the issue of whether the term "daily" in verse 46 is to mean "every day" or whether it is refering to "every day that they met".



There is no mention of how often the "breaking of bread" occurred in Acts 2:42.



AV1611 said:


> There is also the issue that even if you are correct that verse 46 is referring to the Lord's supper and daily means "every day" Luke tells us later in Acts that the practice changed to it being celebrated weekly.



Please read my post above carefully. That is simply not there in the text of Acts 20:7. It's obvious that Acts 20:7 was a meal from Acts 20:11.

Like I say, if you're going to defend weekly communion (something I'm not against) the best place to start is 1 Cor. 11, not Acts.

Blessings AV.


----------



## AV1611 (May 18, 2008)

Marty,



JohnOwen007 said:


> I don't know if you read my comments above but there is no way we can draw such a confident conclusion from Acts 2:42. It just simply isn't explicitly in the text. It seems to me you're reading prior commitments into the text.



I am letting the context determine the meaning, in that there is no logical nor textual reason to say that verses 42 and 46 are refering to the same thing. Indeed most Reformed commentators (i.e. all the ones I have read) make the same point that I am, so it is certainly not the case that I have no foundation on which to stand.



JohnOwen007 said:


> Please read my post above carefully. That is simply not there in the text of Acts 20:7. It's obvious that Acts 20:7 was a meal from Acts 20:11.



I really am at a loss how you can take verse 11 to refer to a meal as being distinct a love-feast which usually attended the eucharist. There is no logical nor textual reason to say that. None of the Reformed commentators I have read draw that distinction.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (May 18, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> I am letting the context determine the meaning, in that there is no logical nor textual reason to say that verses 42 and 46 are refering to the same thing.



Dear AV, if I may, that is _not _letting the context do the talking. We need very good contextual markers to assume that the _same phrase_ means something _different _given their close vicinity. Particularly when we know that the phrase meant a meal from later in Acts (27). That is just a basic rule of exegesis. You haven't produced _any _reason why we can take v. 42 as referring to the Eucharist, but keep reading it _into_ the text. Why? To be frank: if it was an important point the text would be much clearer than it is. As it stands it's ambiguous. Let's thus not try and hang something important upon it.



AV1611 said:


> Indeed most Reformed commentators (i.e. all the ones I have read) make the same point that I am, so it is certainly not the case that I have no foundation on which to stand.



This is not really an argument. One can appeal to other authorities, but it is their _arguments _that count, not their names. All the reformers didn't know about the Granville-Sharp or Colwell's rules; all of the reformers believed that "prophets and apostles" (Eph. 2:20) meant OT prophets and apostles, when it's clear it meant NT prophets and apostles (Eph. 3:5); all of the reformers didn't grasp the full now/not yet eschatalogical meaning of the Kingdom of God. I'm not wanting to demean the reformers--far from it--those guys are my all-time heroes. However, they didn't get everything right. Every generation has it's blind spots (including our own, and blind spots I have, which I can't see--otherwise they wouldn't be blind spots ).

_Sola Scriptura_ *demands *that the text is the final court of appeal, not tradition. Tradition is incredibly important, but it's not infallible and neither were the reformers. They must be tested against the bar of Scripture continually.



AV1611 said:


> I really am at a loss how you can take verse 11 to refer to a meal as being distinct a love-feast which usually attended the eucharist. There is no logical nor textual reason to say that.



Well I hate to cause you a loss . Let me try again. There's a very good textual reason: the Eucharist isn't _explicitly _mentioned. It may've been there, but it can't be proved for certain. Again, if it's important it would be more explicit.

Remember Paul in 1 Cor. 11 was more interested in the rite of the Lord's Supper not the so-called "love feast" (even though it's not called that there) because he told them that if they were hungry to eat at home before they came. We can't just assume that the Eucharist and meal _always_ went together. There's just not enough extant evidence to prove this.

Every blessing dear brother.


----------



## MW (May 18, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> There are a number of problems with Rev. Winzer's argument, the major problem is that the same logic he applies against weekly communion could be applied against weekly preaching. In refering to the WLC teaching on preparation for the Supper he writes, "Does the congregation as a whole undertake to engage in this kind of spiritual exercise every week -- not only mature Christians, but the weak also? If not, it ought to be received less regularly rather than less spiritually." Well let us look at the WLC's teaching on preparation for the preached word:
> 
> *Answer 160:* It is required of those that hear the Word preached, that they attend upon it with diligence, preparation, and prayer; examine: What they hear by the Scriptures; receive the truth with faith, love, meekness, and readiness of mind, as the Word of God; meditate, and confer of it; hide it in their hearts, and bring forth the fruit of it in their lives.​
> Well "Does the congregation as a whole undertake to engage in this kind of spiritual exercise every week -- not only mature Christians, but the weak also? If not, it ought to be received less regularly rather than less spiritually." The answer is obvious!



This reductio ad absurdum is irrelevant in the reformed system because it requires that Word and Sacraments be placed on the same footing and thereby obliterates the reformed understanding of the primacy of the Word (1 Cor. 1:17), as a unique converting ordinance (Rom. 10:17). Once again it becomes apparent that the ugly face of sacerdotalism lingers beneath the surface of most arguments presented in support of weekly communion.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 18, 2008)

Yes, Rev. Winzer. Hence my questions above.



> Would you consider a church a real church if they did not have weekly communion? Would you consider a church a true church if they did not have weekly preaching (say once a month, or once a quarter)? What is the difference? Does that tell us something about the nature of the Lord's Supper?


----------

