# The Lord's Supper: Frequency or Intensity?



## Reformed Christian (Jun 30, 2008)

Our church has practiced weekly communion for years. I believe we see this as the example of the apostolic church, but not a requirement. However, there are many things we see in the NT by way of example (the love feast, selling possessions and having all things in common, etc.) that are not necessarily "patterns" for us to follow.

In the past I would make the argument that "the nature of the Supper determines its frequency." However that argument was made when I held much stronger to "covenant renewal worship." In that light the "covenant meal" came naturally after we had "renewed our covenant vows" in our "covenant worship." (seeing a pattern here?)

I would be interested in the practice of your churches (and your preferences if they differ). Also, what weight would you give to the idea of "intensity" over "frequency" in regards to the Supper?

BTW, I do not intend by the title to this post to set up a false dichotomy. I certainly understand that it is possible to have both frequency and intensity in the sacrament. However, these are the labels often used by those who do not observe weekly communion. In our ministry we work hard to ensure the Supper isn't simply "tacked on the end."


----------



## etexas (Jun 30, 2008)

We take Communion at the first Sunday of the month. As a former Anglican, I was used to Weekly, (sometimes more on High Holy Days ) But I am used to it now.


----------



## Reformed Christian (Jun 30, 2008)

*Spiritual Benefits to Weekly Communion*

I know for me personally the weekly observance of the Lord's Supper has a tremendous sanctifying influence in my life. I have a dear pastor friend in Tulsa with whom I spent several days a few years ago. All of our discussion for the 3 days was on the Lord's Supper. After I left he approached his other elders and they did an "experiement." The other elders were not convinced that celebrating the Supper weekly was a good idea, so they decided to do it for one month and "see how it goes."

That was over 2 years ago. Today they celebrate the Supper twice a month in the morning service and the other times in the evening service - but do it weekly.

I believe he would testify that it has been a blessing to his people and a tremendous means of grace they had "neglected" for much of their ministry.


----------



## MW (Jun 30, 2008)

Reformed Christian said:


> Our church has practiced weekly communion for years. I believe we see this as the example of the apostolic church, but not a requirement.



Where is the example of *weekly* communion in the apostolic church?


----------



## SolaGratia (Jun 30, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Reformed Christian said:
> 
> 
> > Our church has practiced weekly communion for years. I believe we see this as the example of the apostolic church, but not a requirement.
> ...



That's my question as well!


----------



## Reformed Christian (Jun 30, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Where is the example of *weekly* communion in the apostolic church?



I believe a case can be made that the NT chuch did celebrate the Supper weekly. For example, allow me to quote a brief portion from Jim Roger's article:

"Paul writes of Christians coming together "in church" as though that were the same thing as Christians coming together to celebrate the Supper. Look carefully at how Paul describes the same event in 1 Corinthians 11:

17: "you come together" 
18: "when you come together in church" 
33: "when you come together to eat" 
20: "when you meet together it is not to eat the Lord's supper." 
34: "eat at home, so that you may not come together for judgment." 

Each description of the purpose for which the Corinthians "come together" refers to the same object -- the gathering together of the church for worship. So close is the identification between coming together for church and celebrating the Lord's Supper, that Paul calls the coming together for worship the coming together "to eat." And he chastizes the church at Corinth, rebuking them because when they do come together, so corrupt is their practice, that "it is not to eat the Lord's Supper." The implication being, of course, that one of the main points of meeting together is, in fact, to eat the Lord's supper: to say one is to mean the other."

In Acts 20:7 we see that on the "first day of the week the disciples came together to break bread." Some will argue that the verse is speaking of only "that particular day." Seeing they "steadfastly observed" the apostles doctrines, prayer, fellowship and breaking of bread, it seems unlikely that these early Christians would NOT have observed the supper when they "came together" (see above).

Historically the Didache (written between 60-80 AD) indicates the Supper was celebrated weekly saying, "On the Lord's own day gather together and break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure."

These are a few observations we can see at 2:15AM.  

Thoughts?


----------



## MW (Jun 30, 2008)

Reformed Christian said:


> Thoughts?



Yes. In 1 Cor. 11, the apostle states that they were not coming together to partake of the Lord's supper. Hence however often they did it -- it might have been daily -- their practice gives no indication of frequency of communion. I'm inclined to think that the apostle was describing the agape feast, and his instructions require them to have this at home. In Acts 20:7 there is a clear example of seasonal communion around the time of unleavened bread. It is a one off occasion and the text specifically states that they met for the purpose of breaking bread. Concerning the assumption that the Christians would have observed the Supper when they came together, that is the point to be proved. As baptism was not an essential element, 1 Cor. 1:17, there is no reason to believe that the Lord's supper would have been considered such. As for the Didache, it is not apostolic; but if it were, it still doesn't require weekly communion, but the breaking of bread on a specific day of the week, called the Lord's own day.


----------



## Reformed Christian (Jun 30, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Reformed Christian said:
> 
> 
> > Thoughts?
> ...



The apostle was describing the agape feast that was celebrated along with the Supper - and which was the point of controversy because they came without regard to their brethren - in drunkenness, etc. And in so doing were profaning the Supper which was celebrated when they met together as "the church." Paul's instruction was to "eat at home" - to forsake the agape feast if it caused such problems - that they might rightly observe the supper.

Certainly "the church" could well have met more than weekly - and no doubt did as believers met in homes. But that Acts 20 is a "clear example of a seasonal communion" is a stretch - to say the least. It was "after" the days of Unleavened Bread. They traveled for 5 days. They stayed for 7 days. And at some point in those 7 days the Lord's Day rolled around - and on that day it says they "broke bread." 

I believe we see in the use of this language in Acts a "transition" where a common phrase for a meal begins to take on a more "spiritual significance." So that whether the "breaking of bread" included the agape feast along with the Supper or speaks directly of the Lord's Supper, I personally see more than a "fellowship meal" that has nothing to do with the Supper.

As for the Didache - what can I say. It does not "require" but does demonstrate what the church did. And to say that "the Lord's own day" is anything other than the Lord's Day, the first day of the week, is almost ridiculous to me. It would be difficult to even engage that kind of sophistry.

As an aside, another interesting point, when thinking of Paul's instruction in 1 Cor. 11, is the fact that he "delivered to them *what he received from the Lord*," and not what he heard second-hand from the other apostles. It was the Lord Jesus himself who taught Paul about the "last supper" - apparently recounting to him the very words of institution and the circumstances surrounding the meal that Paul in turn relates to the Corinthians. Although not directly related to the issue of "frequency" - it is interesting that the Lord Jesus thought it significant enough that he related the events and very words of institution for Paul - even though they would have been readily learned from the other apostles.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jun 30, 2008)

I think that all we can say is that the Lord's Supper should be a regular observance, Whether once weekly, monthly, or even yearly, that is still a regular, scheduled thing that we all know about, prepare ourselves for and look forward to. It should be taken seriously.

My church did have it once a month, this tradition dating from the founder who was ordained in the church of scotland. For practical reasons we went to twice a month, once morning, once evening. We found that it was all-too easy for church members to miss out for two or three months in a row if sickness/holidays/work duties combined in unhappy providence!

And missing for three months means you get the boot from membership too!


----------



## MW (Jun 30, 2008)

Reformed Christian said:


> The apostle was describing the agape feast that was celebrated along with the Supper - and which was the point of controversy because they came without regard to their brethren - in drunkenness, etc. And in so doing were profaning the Supper which was celebrated when they met together as "the church." Paul's instruction was to "eat at home" - to forsake the agape feast if it caused such problems - that they might rightly observe the supper.



He says specifically that they were not meeting together for the Lord's supper, tells them explicitly to have their meals at home, and deliberately leaves frequency vague by his statement that "as oft" as it is celebrated the Lord's death is shown forth. Clearly there is no evidence here for weekly communion, and one must be already disposed towards it in order to read it into the text.



Reformed Christian said:


> Certainly "the church" could well have met more than weekly - and no doubt did as believers met in homes. But that Acts 20 is a "clear example of a seasonal communion" is a stretch - to say the least. It was "after" the days of Unleavened Bread. They traveled for 5 days. They stayed for 7 days. And at some point in those 7 days the Lord's Day rolled around - and on that day it says they "broke bread."



It does not say, On that day they broke bread, but that they met together on that day to break bread. The specific purpose of this Lord's day was to celebrate the Lord's supper. So instead of a service with the supper tacked on to the end, participation in the supper was the focus of the day -- such as is done in a traditional seasonal communion. Again, one must have a precommitment to weekly communion in order to read it into the text.



Reformed Christian said:


> As for the Didache - what can I say. It does not "require" but does demonstrate what the church did. And to say that "the Lord's own day" is anything other than the Lord's Day, the first day of the week, is almost ridiculous to me. It would be difficult to even engage that kind of sophistry.



No one is disputing that the Lord's day is the reference; the point, however, is, that breaking of bread was prescribed to be done on this day and there is no reference to frequency. So as with the biblical passages, one must already have a precommitment to weekly communion in order to find support for it in this non-apostolic passage.



Reformed Christian said:


> As an aside, another interesting point, when thinking of Paul's instruction in 1 Cor. 11, is the fact that he "delivered to them *what he received from the Lord*," and not what he heard second-hand from the other apostles. It was the Lord Jesus himself who taught Paul about the "last supper" - apparently recounting to him the very words of institution and the circumstances surrounding the meal that Paul in turn relates to the Corinthians. Although not directly related to the issue of "frequency" - it is interesting that the Lord Jesus thought it significant enough that he related the events and very words of institution for Paul - even though they would have been readily learned from the other apostles.



It is correct that the apostle delivered what he received from the Lord, and it is significant that he lays down no instructions with respect to how often the Lord's supper is to be observed; thus making it clear that the Lord Jesus Christ, in ordaining the perpetual observance of the Supper in remembrance of Him, does not require that it be done weekly, contrary to the claims of those who advocate for weekly observance.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 30, 2008)

JonathanHunt said:


> *I think that all we can say is that the Lord's Supper should be a regular observance, Whether once weekly, monthly, or even yearly*, that is still a regular, scheduled thing that we all know about, prepare ourselves for and look forward to. It should be taken seriously.



Would once a decade be OK?


----------



## Herald (Jun 30, 2008)

> It is correct that the apostle delivered what he received from the Lord, and it is significant that he lays down no instructions with respect to how often the Lord's supper is to be observed; thus making it clear that the Lord Jesus Christ, in ordaining the perpetual observance of the Supper in remembrance of Him, does not require that it be done weekly, contrary to the claims of those who advocate for weekly observance.



I concur. There is no requirement for weekly, just as there is no requirement for monthly, quarterly or annually. Churches of like faith will disagree on frequency but they should never disagree on intensity.

By the way, we observe the Lord's Supper weekly.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jun 30, 2008)

Weekly.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jun 30, 2008)

Reformed Christian said:


> Our church has practiced weekly communion for years. I believe we see this as the example of the apostolic church, but not a requirement. However, there are many things we see in the NT by way of example (the love feast, selling possessions and having all things in common, etc.) that are not necessarily "patterns" for us to follow.
> 
> In the past I would make the argument that "the nature of the Supper determines its frequency." However that argument was made when I held much stronger to "covenant renewal worship." In that light the "covenant meal" came naturally after we had "renewed our covenant vows" in our "covenant worship." (seeing a pattern here?)
> 
> ...



Can you define "intensity" from a biblical and/or confessional perspective?


----------



## sastark (Jun 30, 2008)

Weekly at my church.


----------



## KMK (Jun 30, 2008)

This thread has a great discussion on this topic: http://www.puritanboard.com/f19/reasons-denying-his-sheep-lords-supper-30013/


----------



## SolaGratia (Jun 30, 2008)

John Know and John Calvin say that held to it "quarterly" (4 tmes a year). 

And No, I don't speak to the dead!


----------



## etexas (Jun 30, 2008)

SolaGratia said:


> John Know and John Calvin say that held to it "quarterly" (4 tmes a year).
> 
> And No, I don't speak to the dead!


NECROMANCER! Burn him!


----------



## Gage Browning (Jun 30, 2008)

SolaGratia said:


> John Know and John Calvin say that held to it "quarterly" (4 tmes a year).
> 
> And No, I don't speak to the dead!



I believe Calvin wanted it every time the word was preached, but the council at Geneva would not allow it.


----------



## sastark (Jun 30, 2008)

SolaGratia said:


> John Know and John Calvin say that held to it "quarterly" (4 tmes a year).
> 
> And No, I don't speak to the dead!



Calvin actually favored weekly communion, but was forced by the City of Geneva to observe it less often.

See the following:

Reformed Worship | The Lord's Supper: How Often?

The Lord's Supper: How Often

Calvin Institute of Christian Worship - Lord's Supper Practice in the Reformed and Presbyterian Tradition

Shibboleth: On the frequency of Communion
(this one cites Calvin's Institutes in support of the "at least once a week" practice of communion)


----------



## SolaGratia (Jun 30, 2008)

From article, _The Lord's Supper: How Often?_

Calvin could scarcely conceal his disappointment, but he nevertheless foresaw a time when matters might be put right. Towards the end of his life he wrote:

I have taken care to record publicly that our custom is defective, so that those who come after me may be able to correct it the more freely and easily.
[Bretschneider, Corpus Reformatorum, XXXVIII, i, p. 213].

I would like to know from where of Calvin works is the above reference taken?

John Knox after spending time with John Calvin returned to Scotland and held to quarterly communion.

Does John Calvin, in his sermons on the book of Acts, mention anything about weekly communion?


----------



## Sonoftheday (Jun 30, 2008)

My church partakes quarterly, and always during the evening Lord's Day service. I wish we did it weekly, or at least monthly because of the sanctifying effect it has on my own life, however I am in agreement with those here that state that the frequency is not commanded in scripture only that it should be a regular observance.


----------



## SolaGratia (Jun 30, 2008)

"For *as often *as you eat this bread and drink the cup" (1 Cor. 11:26).


----------



## sastark (Jun 30, 2008)

SolaGratia said:


> From article, _The Lord's Supper: How Often?_
> 
> Calvin could scarcely conceal his disappointment, but he nevertheless foresaw a time when matters might be put right. Towards the end of his life he wrote:
> 
> ...




_"All this mass of ceremonies being abandoned, the sacrament might be celebrated in the most becoming manner, if it were dispensed to the Church very frequently, at least once a week"_ 

-Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.43

Copied from Shibboleth: On the frequency of Communion


----------



## SolaGratia (Jun 30, 2008)

I have taken care to record publicly that our custom is defective, so that those who come after me may be able to correct it the more freely and easily.
[Bretschneider, Corpus Reformatorum, XXXVIII, i, p. 213].


"All this mass of ceremonies being abandoned, the sacrament might be celebrated in the most becoming manner, if it were dispensed to the Church very frequently, at least once a week" 

-Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.43

I do not see an equation from the quote of Calvin Institutes and from Bretschneisder reference supposedly of Calvin, therefore I do think this is a legitimate connection to the reference given by Bretschneider of Calvin!


----------



## Staphlobob (Jun 30, 2008)

We celebrate the Lord's Supper weekly. I think an agape meal (pot luck) followed by the Lord's Supper *is* the thrust of 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. What they're doing - or failing to do - so distorts and corrupts the nature of the sacrament that the apostle can say that what they're doing is not the Lord's Supper (otherwise, why would the apostle even bring it up?), but a judgment and condemnation. 

Actually, I've heard it argued with some credibility that verse 26 may well lend itself more to a daily observance (if that were practical). In other words,, how often are we to proclaim the Lord's death? If we could somehow "come together" daily what are we to do ... NOT proclaim His death? 

In the end though, whether a congregation chooses to observe it daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly is of secondary importance. Paul's emphasis is on the *why* we do it.


----------



## sastark (Jun 30, 2008)

SolaGratia said:


> I have taken care to record publicly that our custom is defective, so that those who come after me may be able to correct it the more freely and easily.
> [Bretschneider, Corpus Reformatorum, XXXVIII, i, p. 213].
> 
> 
> ...



Ah! "The above reference." That I don't know. Sorry, misread your post the first time.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jun 30, 2008)

tcalbrecht said:


> JonathanHunt said:
> 
> 
> > *I think that all we can say is that the Lord's Supper should be a regular observance, Whether once weekly, monthly, or even yearly*, that is still a regular, scheduled thing that we all know about, prepare ourselves for and look forward to. It should be taken seriously.
> ...



I don't know, I haven't had a word of knowledge on that topic yet...


----------



## KMK (Jun 30, 2008)

tcalbrecht said:


> Reformed Christian said:
> 
> 
> > Our church has practiced weekly communion for years. I believe we see this as the example of the apostolic church, but not a requirement. However, there are many things we see in the NT by way of example (the love feast, selling possessions and having all things in common, etc.) that are not necessarily "patterns" for us to follow.
> ...


----------



## Reformed Christian (Jul 3, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> He says specifically that they were not meeting together for the Lord's supper, tells them explicitly to have their meals at home, and deliberately leaves frequency vague by his statement that "as oft" as it is celebrated the Lord's death is shown forth. Clearly there is no evidence here for weekly communion, and one must be already disposed towards it in order to read it into the text.



Actually, I believe as Gordon Fee has rightly pointed out, "Thus, even though it is _intended_ to be the Lord's Supper that they are eating 'in assembly,' their carrying over to this meal the distinctions that divided them sociologically also meant that it turned out to be '_not_ the Lord's Supper you eat.'"



armourbearer said:


> It does not say, On that day they broke bread, but that they met together on that day to break bread. The specific purpose of this Lord's day was to celebrate the Lord's supper. So instead of a service with the supper tacked on to the end, participation in the supper was the focus of the day -- such as is done in a traditional seasonal communion. Again, one must have a precommitment to weekly communion in order to read it into the text.



Again, I simply believe that to be a designation for the Lord's Day worship - in celebrating this covenant meal together. But I find it interesting that in one breath you say it was not the Lord's Supper and in another say it was "uniquely" for the Supper. I will, however, give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are simply arguing your point from both sides. 



armourbearer said:


> It is correct that the apostle delivered what he received from the Lord, and it is significant that he lays down no instructions with respect to how often the Lord's supper is to be observed; thus making it clear that the Lord Jesus Christ, in ordaining the perpetual observance of the Supper in remembrance of Him, does not require that it be done weekly, contrary to the claims of those who advocate for weekly observance.



And again as I began this discussion, though I *DO* believe the Lord's Supper was celebrated weekly. What I see in scripture indicates to *me* that the Supper was celebrated weekly (or more often in some cases if you see some particulars in 1 Cor. that way). And I also believe we have testimony from history that the early church celebrated the Supper weekly. 

*None* of this mandates that any church *has to* celebrate the Supper weekly. It is not a requirement for the church. There is no command to do so. I'm thankful to the Lord that we do. It is a tremendous means of grace to our salvation.

For those who took the time to reply to the question - thank you!


----------



## MW (Jul 4, 2008)

Reformed Christian said:


> But I find it interesting that in one breath you say it was not the Lord's Supper and in another say it was "uniquely" for the Supper. I will, however, give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are simply arguing your point from both sides.



At no point did I say that the Supper was not intended by breaking of bread in Acts 20. You must be confusing two different points of the discussion.



Reformed Christian said:


> And again as I began this discussion, though I *DO* believe the Lord's Supper was celebrated weekly. What I see in scripture indicates to *me* that the Supper was celebrated weekly (or more often in some cases if you see some particulars in 1 Cor. that way). And I also believe we have testimony from history that the early church celebrated the Supper weekly.



Then we can agree that the texts of Scripture indicate weekly communion to one who is already predisposed towards weekly communion; but it cannot be established by impartial interpretation of the text of holy Scripure that weekly communuion was practised in the apostolic church.


----------



## Staphlobob (Jul 4, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Then we can agree that the texts of Scripture indicate weekly communion to one who is already predisposed towards weekly communion; but it cannot be established by impartial interpretation of the text of holy Scripure that weekly communuion was practised in the apostolic church.



Given the evidence of both 1 Corinthians and Acts 20 (and especially the former), I take it in exactly the opposite sense.


----------



## Quickened (Jul 4, 2008)

KMK said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> > Reformed Christian said:
> ...


----------



## Reformed Christian (Jul 4, 2008)

Quickened said:


> Can you define "intensity" from a biblical and/or confessional perspective?



Since "intensity" is not a term that I use personally, but one that I have heard many who advocate a less frequent observance use, I cannot speak for them as to the "confessional usage." That's actually part of my question - to determine what exactly is meant by "intensity" that is somehow greater - at least in their thinking - than what is experienced (if that is at least in part what is implied) by those who celebrate weekly (or at least "more frequently"). 

As has been pointed out in other posts, the Scottish Presbyterians would have their "seasons of Communion," which Whitefield remarked several times in his Journals as being such a time as he had never experienced. I believe those would be "examples" of what people mean by "intensity," but I'm not quite certain.

I would be interested in the reasons a church would NOT celebrate the Supper weekly. Are there practical issues such as "tradition" that would cause an uproar the church? Would it not be profitable to avail ourselves of a means of grace God had given for our salvation? Are we afraid of it becoming "common" by celebrating it weekly?

For those of you who are in a position to administer the sacrament, if you had your "druthers" - would you celebrate it weekly? Why or why not?


----------



## KMK (Jul 4, 2008)

Reformed Christian said:


> Since "intensity" is not a term that I use personally, but one that I have heard many who advocate a less frequent observance use, I cannot speak for them as to the "confessional usage." That's actually part of my question - to determine what exactly is meant by "intensity" that is somehow greater - at least in their thinking - than what is experienced (if that is at least in part what is implied) by those who celebrate weekly (or at least "more frequently").
> 
> I would be interested in the reasons a church would NOT celebrate the Supper weekly. Are there practical issues such as "tradition" that would cause an uproar the church? Would it not be profitable to avail ourselves of a means of grace God had given for our salvation? Are we afraid of it becoming "common" by celebrating it weekly?





KMK said:


> This thread has a great discussion on this topic: http://www.puritanboard.com/f19/reasons-denying-his-sheep-lords-supper-30013/



In the above thread, Rev Winzer makes this wise point (with which I agree):



> There are a variety of reasons. One major reason is what the Lord's supper requires so far as spiritual exercise is concerned. Consider the Larger Catechism.
> 
> Answer 171: They that receive the sacrament of the Lord's supper are, before they come, to prepare themselves thereunto, by examining themselves of their being in Christ, of their sins and wants; of the truth and measure of their knowledge, faith, repentance; love to God and the brethren, charity to all men, forgiving those that have done them wrong; of their desires after Christ, and of their new obedience; and by renewing the exercise of these graces, by serious meditation, and fervent prayer.
> 
> ...



This may answer the question as to the meaning of 'intensity': taking seriously what the WS have to say about partaking of the Lord's Supper.


----------



## Reformed Christian (Jul 5, 2008)

KMK said:


> 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.
> 
> This may answer the question as to the meaning of 'intensity': taking seriously what the WS have to say about partaking of the Lord's Supper.



If I am not mistaken I read another thread from quite some time back discussing weekly communion. In it someone asked the question regarding each of the quotes from the LC, "do these same things not apply to the preaching of the Word of God!" For example, should we not when coming to the preaching of the Word:

prepare ourselves (by the same means outlined)?
with holy reverence wait upon him?
stir up ourselves to a vigerous exercise of graces?
come hungering and thristing after Christ?
And after hearing the Word, should we not:

seriously consider how we have behaved?
find quickening and comfort in the Word, and bless God for it?
beg the continuance of it?
watch against relapses?
encourage ourselves to a *frequent *attendence to it?
and if we find no benefit in it to us, to review our preparation?
In preaching we have the gospel "spoken." In the sacraments we have the gospel in physical elements - "proclaiming the Lord's death till he comes." I see the personal preparations for believers very similar as to their essentials between the preaching of the Word and the observance of the sacrament - though we rarely spend much time considering our "preparation" to hear the Word preached.

Following the same logic, should weaker Christians only then attend to the preaching of the Word of God - say monthly?


----------



## MW (Jul 5, 2008)

Reformed Christian said:


> Following the same logic, should weaker Christians only then attend to the preaching of the Word of God - say monthly?



Following the same logic denies the primacy of the Word (1 Cor. 1:17) as a converting ordinance (Rom. 10:17).


----------



## Reformed Christian (Jul 5, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Following the same logic denies the primacy of the Word (1 Cor. 1:17) as a converting ordinance (Rom. 10:17).



There is not doubt as to the primacy of the Word of God over the sacraments as a converting ordinance. 

For the believer, however, the Spirit works "similarly" in our _sanctification_ in both the preached Word and the sacrament. The Lord's Supper is not a means of grace unto justification, but it is a means of grace unto salvation - the Holy Spirit working in us, both through the preparation unto it and in its obsersvance.


----------



## MW (Jul 5, 2008)

Reformed Christian said:


> For the believer, however, the Spirit works "similarly" in our _sanctification_ in both the preached Word and the sacrament. The Lord's Supper is not a means of grace unto justification, but it is a means of grace unto salvation - the Holy Spirit working in us, both through the preparation unto it and in its obsersvance.



This is sacerdotalism, not reformed sacramentology. The sacrament has no efficacy apart from the Word, and therefore cannot be said to work *similarly* to the Word.


----------



## Reformed Christian (Jul 5, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> This is sacerdotalism, not reformed sacramentology. The sacrament has no efficacy apart from the Word, and therefore cannot be said to work *similarly* to the Word.



Brother, on this point you are quite mistaken. Far from being sacerdotalism, what I have articuluated is Confessional sacramental theology.

WSC Q. 91. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the *working of his Spirit in them that by faith* receive them.

Note again the _similarity_ the WSC places on the preparation, necessity of faith and work of the Holy Spirit in both the preaching of the Word and the sacraments:

Q. 89. How is the Word made effectual to salvation?
A. The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching, of the Word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith, unto salvation.

Q. 90. How is the Word to be read and heard, that it may become effectual to salvation?
A. That the Word may become effectual to salvation, we must attend thereunto with diligence, preparation, and prayer; receive it with faith and love, lay it up in our hearts, and practice it in our lives.

Nothing I said implies that the sacraments are effectual _ex opere operato_. You are quick to throw out the "sacradotal" label - I've seen it several times. I'd be more careful.


----------



## Reformed Christian (Jul 5, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> The sacrament has no efficacy apart from the Word, and therefore cannot be said to work *similarly* to the Word.



BTW, I did not say that the "sacrament" worked similiarly to the Word. I believe you have misquoted me. If you read my post it says that the Spirit works similiarly in us for our sanctification in both the preached Word and the Lord's Supper.


----------



## SolaGratia (Jul 5, 2008)

"The Lord's Supper is not a means of grace unto justification, but it is a *means of grace unto salvation"*

What do you mean by that?


----------



## KMK (Jul 5, 2008)

Reformed Christian said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



First of all, is this what you mean by 'intensity'? Making full use of the LS as outlined in the WLC?

Secondly, I also disagree with your argument. The primacy of the Word leads us to preach as oft as possible. When the LS is added to the preached Word, according to the WLC, you are adding a great deal of self-reflection and preparation to that which is expected to accompany preaching. I can certainly understand the view that this might be burdening the congregation with more than they can bear. I think it would depend on the congregation.


----------



## Reformed Christian (Jul 5, 2008)

SolaGratia said:


> "The Lord's Supper is not a means of grace unto justification, but it is a *means of grace unto salvation"* What do you mean by that?



"Salvation" - both biblically and confessionally - is much broader than justification. We have been "saved" (justification), we are being saved (sanctification) and we shall be saved (glorification).

The WSC uses the same language:

Q. 91. How do the sacraments become effectual means of _salvation_?
A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them.


----------



## Reformed Christian (Jul 5, 2008)

KMK said:


> [First of all, is this what you mean by 'intensity'? Making full use of the LS as outlined in the WLC?



Again, I can only "guess" at what folks mean by using the term "intensity." Tha is not a term that I use personally, but a term I have often heard in the context of, "We tend to focus more on intensity than frequency" in regards to the Supper. But I do not know how someone would define that themselves if pressed. And I'm sure that different people would define those things differently - especially when the language itself is not biblical or confessional.



KMK said:


> Secondly, I also disagree with your argument. The primacy of the Word leads us to preach as oft as possible.



Agreed. The point I was making, and I'm sure I could have been more clear, is that simply because the Lord's Supper requires "preparation," that is not a reason to do it either more or less frequently. And I was simply pointing out that the Standards also speak of the preparation required to rightly attend to the preaching of the Word of God, yet we would never apply the same logic it.



KMK said:


> When the LS is added to the preached Word, according to the WLC, you are adding a great deal of self-reflection and preparation to that which is expected to accompany preaching.



Is there is a greater _degree_ of preparation that goes into the LS than the hearing of the Word of God - especially when we acknowledge the preached Word has such a greater degree of primacy? Certainly there are aspects or preparation in the Supper that Paul articulates that are "unique" to the Supper (e.g. self-examination, judging ourselves and discernment of the Lord's body, etc.), but I'm not sure I see that this constitutes such a different "degree" of preparation that it would require a less frequent observance.

We must be careful in the Lord's Supper that we not make more of it than the scriptures - and that we not make too little of the Supper. 



KMK said:


> I can certainly understand the view that this might be burdening the congregation with more than they can bear. I think it would depend on the congregation.



The question I have is where do we see biblically that the LS is only for mature Christians who can "bear the burden" of examining themselves. I wonder if this is partly from a view that requires "morbid introspection." It might do folks well to read Willison's Sacramental Catechism regarding those who should come - and what is required to rightly receive the sacrament. It's been very useful in our understanding of the LS. You can see it on Google Books. Paul certainly does not tell the church at Corinth, who were celebrating the Supper in gross sin, that they should wait until the church could "bear the burden" of such an intense preparation.

I'm not sure understand that view.


----------



## KMK (Jul 6, 2008)

These are good questions.

If we put the WLC teaching on receiving the Word and the LS side by side, let's see what is required.

Q. 160. What is required of those that hear the Word preached?

A. It is required of those that hear the Word preached, that they 1) attend upon it with diligence,[1034] preparation,[1035] and prayer;[1036] 2) examine what they hear by the Scriptures;[1037] 3) receive the truth with faith,[1038] love,[1039] meekness,[1040] and readiness of mind,[1041] as the Word of God;[1042] 4) meditate,[1043] and confer of it;[1044] 5) hide it in their hearts,[1045] and 6) bring forth the fruit of it in their lives[1046].


Q. 171. How are they that receive the sacrament of the Lord’s supper to prepare themselves before they come unto it?

A. They that receive the sacrament of the Lord’s supper are, before they come, to prepare themselves thereunto, by 1) examining themselves[1088] of their being in Christ,[1089] 2) of their sins and wants;[1090] 3) of the truth and measure of their knowledge,[1091] faith,[1092] repentance;[1093] 4) love to God and the brethren,[1094] 5) charity to all men,[1095] 6) forgiving those that have done them wrong;[1096] 7) of their desires after Christ,[1097] and of their new obedience;[1098] and by renewing the exercise of these graces,[1099] by 8) serious meditation,[1100] and 9) fervent prayer.[1101]

Q. 174. What is required of them that receive the sacrament of the Lord’s supper in the time of the administration of it?

A. It is required of them that receive the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, that, during the time of the administration of it, 1) with all holy reverence and attention they wait upon God in that ordinance,[1112] 2) diligently observe the sacramental elements and actions,[1113] 3) heedfully discern the Lord’s body,[1114] and 4) affectionately meditate on his death and sufferings,[1115] and thereby stir up themselves to a vigorous exercise of their graces;[1116] 5) in judging themselves,[1117] and sorrowing for sin;[1118] 6) in earnest hungering and thirsting after Christ,[1119] 7)feeding on him by faith,[1120]8) receiving of his fullness,[1121] 9) trusting in his merits,[1122] 10) rejoicing in his love,[1123] 11) giving thanks for his grace;[1124] 12) in renewing of their covenant with God,[1125] 13) and love to all the saints.[1126]

Q. 175. What is the duty of Christians, after they have received the sacrament of the Lord’s supper?

A. The duty of Christians, after they have received the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, is seriously to 1) consider how they have behaved themselves therein, and with what success;[1127] if they find quickening and comfort, to 2) bless God for it,[1128] 3) beg the continuance of it,[1129] 4) watch against relapses,[1130] 5) fulfill their vows,[1131] and 6) encourage themselves to a frequent attendance on that ordinance:[1132] but if they find no present benefit, more exactly to 7) review their preparation to, and carriage at, the sacrament;[1133] in both which, if they can approve themselves to God and their own consciences, they are to wait for the fruit of it in due time:[1134] but, if they see they have failed in either, they are to be humbled,[1135] and to attend upon it afterwards with more care and diligence.[1136]

Therefore, the preached Word requires communicants...

1) attend upon it with diligence, preparation, and prayer 
2) examine what they hear by the Scriptures
3) receive the truth with faith, love, meekness, and readiness of mind, as the Word of God
4) meditate, and confer of it
5) hide it in their hearts
6) bring forth the fruit of it in their lives

The LS requires communicants...

1) examining themselves of their being in Christ
2) of their sins and wants
3) of the truth and measure of their knowledge faith, repentance
4) love to God and the brethren
5) charity to all men 
6) forgiving those that have done them wrong
7) of their desires after Christ, and of their new obedience 
8) serious meditation
9) fervent prayer
10) with all holy reverence and attention they wait upon God
11) diligently observe the sacramental elements and actions
12) heedfully discern the Lord’s body
13) affectionately meditate on his death and sufferings
14) judging themselves, and sorrowing for sin
15) in earnest hungering and thirsting after Christ
16)feeding on him by faith
17) receiving of his fullness
18) trusting in his merits
19) rejoicing in his love
20) giving thanks for his grace
21) in renewing of their covenant with God
22) and love to all the saints

There may be some overlap in these different requirements but the bottom line is this: if a pastor takes seriously everything that the WLC requires of communicants, then he will be placing a much greater burden when the LS is joined with the regularly preached Word.

As a pastor, I am staggered by the WLC in this area. It is no small feat to exhort the communicants to engage in all of these things each time the Lord's Supper is offered.


----------



## Reformed Christian (Jul 6, 2008)

KMK said:


> There may be some overlap in these different requirements but the bottom line is this: if a pastor takes seriously everything that the WLC requires of communicants, then he will be placing a much greater burden when the LS is joined with the regularly preached Word.
> 
> As a pastor, I am staggered by the WLC in this area. It is no small feat to exhort the communicants to engage in all of these things each time the Lord's Supper is offered.



Brother, first of all, thank you for taking the time time to pull together all that you have for your reply. I appreciate it.

My question comes back to what we see biblically. I have a tremendous appreciation for the Confession / Catechisms. However, many of the things that it says of the LS apply equally to the Word, whether the standards articulate all of them or not. And certainly the list given for the preparation and attendance to the preached Word is not exhaustive and could have been broken up and made "just as long" (as if that is a standard by which to judge).

I think one my difficulties here is the idea of speaking of these things as a "burden." We are in a ministry that does celebrate the Lord's Supper weekly. And we have taught much over the years on the subject. Our people understand what we do when we come to the Table. So in this respect I think I can understand how that may have an influence, not so much on frequency, but on the overall understanding and personal preparation individuals may have when coming to the Supper.

And I do not dispute that everything listed is not important or should not be observed. However, as a pastor I believe those things should be taught to the church - as we have done and continue to do - so that they understand what it is we are doing (and what is required of them) when we come to the LS.

Every week when we come to the Table we read the words of institution, we fence the table and articulate again what it means to rightly partake. We _remind_ the church, as Peter says he does, of the things they already know. I know for me personally the LS is a tremendous means of sanctification as I consider during the week my communion with Christ at his Supper on the Lord's Day.

As I have read and reread the list you compiled several times, I do not see where any of those would require, or even suggest, an extended period of time between the observance to rightly partake - as if you cannot, on a weekly basis:

1.	examine ourselves
2.	love God and our brethren
3.	forgive wrongdoers
4.	seriously meditate
5.	fervently pray
6.	reverently wait upon God
7.	diligently observe the sacraments
8.	affectionately meditate
9.	judge ourselves
10.	hunger and thirst after Christ
11.	feed on Christ
12.	receive his fullness
13.	trust in his merits
14.	rejoice in his love
15.	give thanks for his grace
16.	renew our covenant
17.	etc.

There is not doubt that these things are "heightened" in the sacrament. But many of these same things are commanded for the Christian to do - without reference to the LS. Should we not "hunger and thirst after righteousness?" Are we not to forgive, rejoice, give thanks, meditate and pray always? 

The LS brings these things into focus for us, because by neglecting these things we may find ourselves disqualified to rightly partake. But we should be about many of these things in our daily pursuit after holiness. Again, I see the LS as a means of grace the Spirit of God uses in my life for my sanctification.

Thanks again, brother. I do appreciate your thoughtful responses.


----------



## KMK (Jul 6, 2008)

I thank you as well for all of your hard work, Pastor! It sounds like you have a wonderful congregation. Keep it up!


----------



## MW (Jul 6, 2008)

Reformed Christian said:


> Note again the _similarity_ the WSC places on the preparation, necessity of faith and work of the Holy Spirit in both the preaching of the Word and the sacraments:



This is irrelevant to your previous assertion. The Catechism questions only state that the Spirit's operation is necessary in both Word and sacraments. Your assertion, however, maintained that the Spirit works *similarly* in relation to both. The Catechisms support no such assertion. The assertion is contrary to reformed sacramentology. The sacramental exercise of faith is a faith wrought by means of the Word. Sacraments are and ever shall be subordinate to the Word as a means of grace. Your attempted logic to apply sacrament preparation to Word preparation places them on a par and thereby negates the primacy of the Word.

There is no support either exegetical or theological for weekly communion. It is a human tradition; and insofar as it raises the Lord's supper to something more than a sacramental means of grace, it is a human tradition which makes the word of God of none effect.


----------



## Reformed Christian (Jul 7, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> Reformed Christian said:
> 
> 
> > Note again the _similarity_ the WSC places on the preparation, necessity of faith and work of the Holy Spirit in both the preaching of the Word and the sacraments:
> ...



Can you please explain the nature of the Spirit's "operation" in both - and how it is different between the Word and Sacrament as spoken of in questions #89 and 91 - seeing the Catechism says that both are *made effectual by the Spirit*?

The Standards seem clear that both the Word of God and the Lord's Supper are an effectual means of salvation. In both the Word of God and the Lord's Supper it is the Spirit of God that makes them effectual unto salvation. In both the Word of God and the Lord's Supper we are to come in faith, prayer, preparation and diligence. 

No one is speaking of the Lord's Supper as a "converting ordinance." Again, as you know, when the Questions above speak of "salvation" it is not our "justification" that is in view, but our sanctification. That the Word of God does have primacy is the reason I do not say that the Spirit works in _the exact same way_, but similarly in our sanctification. If the Spirit works "effectually unto our salvation" in both the Word and Sacrament, are you then saying that there is no similarity in the operation of the Spirit as He works effectually?



armourbearer said:


> There is no support either exegetical or theological for weekly communion. It is a human tradition; and insofar as it raises the Lord's supper to something more than a sacramental means of grace, it is a human tradition which makes the word of God of none effect.



We simply disagree on this point. I see the arguments from 1 Cor. 11 to be convincing. You stating the opposite as strongly as you do does not make it so. I wish it were that easy.  And some might argue that the extra-biblical, historical references to weekly communion - again the Didache from the 1st century, for example - would suggest "apostolic tradition" and not "human tradition."

But what is more interesting is that now, after I have said that there is no commandment to observe the LS weekly (from the very beginning), that in doing so you’re implying that we are "wrong" and have made the word of God to no effect. What happened to, "as oft as you do it" being vague and left up to a particular congregation to determine the frequency?


----------



## SolaGratia (Jul 7, 2008)

Lord's Day 25 (Heidelberg Catechism)

65. Since then we are made partakers of Christ and all his benefits by faith only, whence comes this faith? 

The Holy Ghost works it in our hearts by *the preaching of the Gospel*, and *confirms it *by the use of the Holy Sacraments. 



66. What are the Sacraments? 

The Sacraments are visible, holy signs and seals, appointed by God for this end, that by the use thereof He may the more fully declare and seal to us the promise of the Gospel: namely, that He grants us out of free grace the forgiveness of sins and everlasting life, for the sake of the one sacrifice of Christ accomplished on the cross. 



67. Are both these, then, the Word and the Sacraments, designed to direct our faith to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, as the only ground of our salvation? 

Yes truly; for the Holy Ghost teaches in the Gospel, and *by the Holy Sacraments assures us*, that our whole salvation stands in the one sacrifice of Christ made for us on the cross.


----------



## MW (Jul 7, 2008)

Reformed Christian said:


> Can you please explain the nature of the Spirit's "operation" in both - and how it is different between the Word and Sacrament as spoken of in questions #89 and 91 - seeing the Catechism says that both are *made effectual by the Spirit*?



The old distinction is that faith is roused or engendered by the Word, but faith in the Word is confirmed or strengthened by the sacrament. Please consult Heppe's Reformed Dogmatics, p. 595, 596; Berkhof's Systematic Theology, p. 616. The sacraments require interpretation; the Word provides the interpretation. The Word is indispensable; sacraments are not, but are added to the Word.



Reformed Christian said:


> What happened to, "as oft as you do it" being vague and left up to a particular congregation to determine the frequency?



If "how often" is a circumstance of worship to be regulated by Christian worship, then it obviously is not an approved example rendering it a divine requirement. OTOH, if the NT had testified weekly observance as an apostolic practice, anything less than weekly observance would be an omission of duty. But as it stands, there is no example of weekly observance in the NT, hence frequency is a circumstance to be determined by Christian prudence.


----------



## SolaGratia (Jul 7, 2008)

Reformed Christian said:


> SolaGratia said:
> 
> 
> > "The Lord's Supper is not a means of grace unto justification, but it is a *means of grace unto salvation"* What do you mean by that?
> ...



How is the Lord's Supper "a means of grace *unto*(?) salvation" according to Q. 96?


----------



## Reformed Christian (Jul 7, 2008)

SolaGratia said:


> Reformed Christian said:
> 
> 
> > SolaGratia said:
> ...



Just a typo, thanks. It should be "of salvation."


----------

