# I would like the input and opinion of my Presbyterian PB brothers



## dudley (May 14, 2010)

There is a discussion in my Presbyterian congregation about changing our policy on the observance of the Lords Supper. Currently we celebrate the Lords Supper only once a month on the first Sunday. I am not sure if we should change the policy. It might be a surprise to some of you, and some of you might take issue with me on this point, but the Bible does not say how often we are to practice the Lord's Supper - it doesn't. The Lord is recorded as saying by Paul, if you look back at 1 Corinthians 11 please, in verse 26: 'As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup'. I have in the past sided with the current policy of monthly communion because I think as an ex roman catholic I am fearful it would become too ordinary and not special as I think it should be. 

However I am doing some reading and re thinking the position. As a Presbyterians I have however read John Calvin in his Institutes of Christian Religion where he said that the Supper should be observed, I quote: 'Very frequently, and at least once in a week'. The founder of Methodism, John Wesley, led his people every Sunday to break bread. The great Baptist preacher, C. H. Spurgeon, wrote these words: 'Shame of the Christian Church that she should put it off once a month. They who once knew the sweetness of each Lord's Day celebrating the Lord's Supper will not be content to put it off to less frequent seasons'.

I would appreciate the thinking of my PB Presbyterian brothers and also I am interested in knowing what the policy is in your Presbyterian church. Thank you.


----------



## au5t1n (May 14, 2010)

The Scriptural precedent is frequent. The Lord's Supper and the Lord's Day go hand-in-hand, along with the other elements of the Lord's day worship service, in my opinion.


----------



## N. Eshelman (May 14, 2010)

How can you claim that the Bible says 'frequent' and then lean on forefathers that define frequent as weekly? I am okay with weekly, but can we be dogmatic about it? We don't baptize every Lord's Day and that is an element of worship. 

Many of our Scottish forefathers said once a year because of the Passover feast. The bottom line is that the Reformed and Presbyterian churches are not united on this- and that's okay as long as it's united on the freedom of sessions to make that decision. 

The Synod of Dort says 4 times a year plus some holy days. 
The Westminster does not define how often, but allow for more frequent communion and less frequent communion. 

Since we are confessional, we need to stand on that.


----------



## dudley (May 14, 2010)

nleshelman said:


> How can you claim that the Bible says 'frequent' and then lean on forefathers that define frequent as weekly? I am okay with weekly, but can we be dogmatic about it? We don't baptize every Lord's Day and that is an element of worship.
> 
> Many of our Scottish forefathers said once a year because of the Passover feast. The bottom line is that the Reformed and Presbyterian churches are not united on this- and that's okay as long as it's united on the freedom of sessions to make that decision.
> 
> ...



What does your church practice regarding the Lords Supper?


----------



## N. Eshelman (May 14, 2010)

We have hourly communion.  

Actually, we have communion every other month (6 times a year). Before I got here it was much less frequent than that... so we are slowly considering the frequency question. You see, the problem is though that if you make it more frequent it is hard to go back. So move with caution. 

Personally I do not think that our session would go more than monthly- I am fine with that. Once a month would be frequent enough, in my opinion.


----------



## dudley (May 14, 2010)

nleshelman said:


> We have hourly communion.
> 
> Actually, we have communion every other month (6 times a year). Before I got here it was much less frequent than that... so we are slowly considering the frequency question. You see, the problem is though that if you make it more frequent it is hard to go back. So move with caution.
> 
> Personally I do not think that our session would go more than monthly- I am fine with that. Once a month would be frequent enough, in my opinion.



Thank you, I agree with you I think once a month is what I would like to see continue at my church. As a Protestant and a Presbyterian I believe the Gospel is central to all the Christian life and as such should be the central focus of our worship. The sacrament of the Lords Supper even when celebrated should not overpower the service of the word of the Gospel. I believe we who are Reformed Protestants should not be a sacramental church like the Roman catholic church or the Eastern orthodox churches.


----------



## Romans922 (May 14, 2010)

It shouldn't be more often than the preaching of the Word.


----------



## raekwon (May 15, 2010)

We do weekly. I like weekly.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 15, 2010)

I have personally always held that the preaching of the word ought to be aligned with the means of seeing Christ. The Lord's Supper is our physical means of seeing him. It is also a means of warnings, chastisement, blessed union, blessed relationship, blessed daily and weekly personal revival. The early Church broke bread whenever they met if I am not mistaken. 

There is a grace that is attributed to it we should never take for granted. The warnings and blessings of this physical picture would be a benefit more so if we took it to heart weekly in my opinion. 

I truly have benefitted from the relationship of communion and the following passage. 



> (Mat 5:22) But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
> 
> (Mat 5:23) Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
> 
> (Mat 5:24) Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.



If the Horizontal isn't correct then the Vertical is all messed up. I have a mess in my life. Weekly communion would help this. But I could also numb myself to my destruction. I think that is the argument. There might be some balance.


----------



## jwithnell (May 15, 2010)

I am hoping our church will go to a weekly observance. It is currently monthly. There are practical considerations too: if you have to miss (doing nursery, weather closing church -- we had this last winter -- illness in the family) then your participation gets spread out that much further. What a blessing it is to come to the table of our Lord.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (May 15, 2010)

dudley said:


> There is a discussion in my Presbyterian congregation about changing our policy on the observance of the Lords Supper. Currently we celebrate the Lords Supper only once a month on the first Sunday. I am not sure if we should change the policy. It might be a surprise to some of you, and some of you might take issue with me on this point, but the Bible does not say how often we are to practice the Lord's Supper - it doesn't. The Lord is recorded as saying by Paul, if you look back at 1 Corinthians 11 please, in verse 26: 'As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup'. I have in the past sided with the current policy of monthly communion because I think as an ex roman catholic I am fearful it would become too ordinary and not special as I think it should be.
> 
> However I am doing some reading and re thinking the position. As a Presbyterians I have however read John Calvin in his Institutes of Christian Religion where he said that the Supper should be observed, I quote: 'Very frequently, and at least once in a week'. The founder of Methodism, John Wesley, led his people every Sunday to break bread. The great Baptist preacher, C. H. Spurgeon, wrote these words: 'Shame of the Christian Church that she should put it off once a month. They who once knew the sweetness of each Lord's Day celebrating the Lord's Supper will not be content to put it off to less frequent seasons'.
> 
> I would appreciate the thinking of my PB Presbyterian brothers and also I am interested in knowing what the policy is in your Presbyterian church. Thank you.


 
You didn't ask about a Congregational church, but we are actually more Presbyterian than Congregational in my opinion, albeit without formal ties to the wider church. 

Our practice is weekly communion. We hold communion normally during the evening service, but switch it to the morning service once per month.

I can sympathize greatly with Spurgeon's words as you quoted. I had never been a part of a church previous to this, which held communion weekly. But I will say that I now love it, and would miss it if we were not able to partake once per week. It has in no way diminished in reverence or importance. I find that it forces me to bear open my heart and prepare by repenting of known sins every week, in the fear of the Lord and thanksgiving for his mercy. Now, this evidence is purely subjective. I have not yet taken an objective position based on Scripture, but our pastor, Dr. Allen Tomlinson (OPC), does believe that the Scripture indicates that the apostles held communion weekly based on Acts 2:42's listing of the "breaking of bread" as an ordinary part of worship along with "prayer" and "the apostles' doctrine".


----------



## Dearly Bought (May 15, 2010)

My preference is weekly in order that the Supper might seal the Word preached each Lord's Day. However, I'd only counsel weekly communion if the session/consistory has prepared and planned to properly fence the table. I would rather see the Supper administered bi-monthly but properly fenced than see a weekly administration with poor fencing of the table.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 15, 2010)




----------



## Peairtach (May 15, 2010)

We have the Lord's Supper, 3 or 4 times a year. Some Free Church congregations have it once a year and some 12 times a year.

If you wish it more frequently you can visit other congregations when they are having it.

In a real sense we renew Covenant with God in Christ every time we go to Him in repentant prayer and seek cleansing and renewed obedience.

The Lord's Supper is renewal of Covenant in a special sense. I think having it every week might be too frequent, but I might be wrong on that.


----------



## KMK (May 15, 2010)

Here is a good thread from a couple of years ago: http://www.puritanboard.com/f19/reasons-denying-his-sheep-lords-supper-30013/


----------



## KMK (May 15, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> The Lord's Supper is renewal of Covenant in a special sense.


 
Is this idea reflected in the Westminster Standards?


----------



## Willem van Oranje (May 15, 2010)

KMK said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > The Lord's Supper is renewal of Covenant in a special sense.
> ...



In the WCF the sacraments are included with prayer and the preaching of the word as "ordinary parts of the religious worship of God." This certainly doesn't disallow holding Communion less frequently than prayer and preaching are held, but I think the logic of it would consistently tend toward the conclusion that the sacraments (whenever possible) should accompany these other parts of the ordinary worship of God.

(Of course, I'm not saying that all the West. divines saw it that way, just, that their logic seems to tend toward that conclusion, whether they recognized it or not.)


----------



## Prufrock (May 15, 2010)

Willem van Oranje said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Richard Tallach said:
> ...


 
Not quite. The section of the confession which you noted does not simply say "the sacrament" (i.e., the supper), but "the sacraments" (including baptism). If the logic really tended toward what you state, then it would not just speak to the frequency of the supper, but baptism as well. The passover meal, for instance (among many other OT feasts and ceremonies) was an "ordinary" part of the OT testament worship, but only happened once a year.


----------



## Peairtach (May 15, 2010)

KMK said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > The Lord's Supper is renewal of Covenant in a special sense.
> ...



I'm not aware that the idea of the Lord's Supper being an act of Covenant renewal is in the WCF. But the WCF doesn't include everything that is in the Bible.

When we go to the Lord's Supper, we are, without words, apart from sung words, publicly renewing, by God's grace, our covenant relation to God in Christ, and publicly confessing that we are followers of Christ, by God's grace, in a peculiar way, the Lord's Supper being one of the signs and seals of the Covenant of Grace according to the WCF.


----------



## Christopher88 (May 15, 2010)

The 5:00 o clock service which I go to does it weekly, not sure about the 11:00.

I like doing it weekly.


----------



## KMK (May 15, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Richard Tallach said:
> ...


 
Does this mean that if I never partook of the Supper again I would be outside the New Covenant?


----------



## Edward (May 15, 2010)

"58-1. The Communion, or Supper of the Lord, is to be observed
frequently; the stated times to be determined by the Session of each
congregation, as it may judge most for edification."

PCA BCO.


----------



## au5t1n (May 15, 2010)

Is it disputed by anyone that the NT church had the Lord's supper each Lord's day and considered it a regular element of the worship service? I understand the practical arguments and the allowance for different frequencies -- that's all well and good. But what I am asking here is whether there is any question what the NT church's practice was.


----------



## Peairtach (May 15, 2010)

KMK said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > KMK said:
> ...



No. There are two aspects to the Covenant, the internal and external. Like marriage. The internal is the love and the external is the ceremony.

Abraham had the internal aspect of the Covenant before he was circumcised, and that was what saved him. But it was extremely important that he went through with the external part of the Covenant.

But if you refused to partake of the Lord's Supper, without legitimate reason, you would be putting yourself outside the Covenant and Church in an important way (i.e. visibly), you may be weakening or damaging your faith and that of others, and you maybe should be disciplined for this.

See Numbers 9 for lessons on this from the Passover.

---------- Post added at 12:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:13 AM ----------




austinww said:


> Is it disputed by anyone that the NT church had the Lord's supper each Lord's day and considered it a regular element of the worship service? I understand the practical arguments and the allowance for different frequencies -- that's all well and good. But what I am asking here is whether there is any question what the NT church's practice was.



I think it is disputed by some, because the biblical data on this aren't as fullsome as some would like (?)


----------



## fredtgreco (May 15, 2010)

austinww said:


> Is it disputed by anyone that the NT church had the Lord's supper each Lord's day and considered it a regular element of the worship service? I understand the practical arguments and the allowance for different frequencies -- that's all well and good. But what I am asking here is whether there is any question what the NT church's practice was.


 Yes. I just preached on Acts 2:42ff last Lord's Day. It is not possible to get at what the Church's frequency was from the text. We do not know whether they gathered just for a meal, for the Supper or for a combination, and how frequent that mix was. 

That the Lord's Supper is not what is only in view in the text is evident by the fact that the phrase "breaking of bread" that occurs in 2:42 (where it would _appear_ to be a reference to the Supper) also occurs in 2:46, where it is "breaking bread in their homes, they received their *food* with glad and generous hearts." The word for "food" ( [FONT=&quot]τροφή[/FONT]) does not ever occur in the context of the Supper.

So the short answer is that while Acts 2 might refer to a _daily Lord's _Supper, it is far from definitive. It is surprising to me how weekly communion advocates will wrest that as a _necessity _from the text.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (May 15, 2010)

Prufrock said:


> Not quite. The section of the confession which you noted does not simply say "the sacrament" (i.e., the supper), but "the sacraments" (including baptism). If the logic really tended toward what you state, then it would not just speak to the frequency of the supper, but baptism as well. The passover meal, for instance (among many other OT feasts and ceremonies) was an "ordinary" part of the OT testament worship, but only happened once a year.


 
In fact, you misquoted me. I wrote, "sacraments." We would love to have a baptism every week, if we could!


----------



## N. Eshelman (May 15, 2010)

One of the practical problems with weekly communion is that when your priest... I mean... pastor is away you cannot have students, licentiates, or men from other denominations preach for you (unless you allow all of those men to administer the sacrament). 

I think this needs to be considered as well.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (May 15, 2010)

nleshelman said:


> One of the practical problems with weekly communion is that when your priest... I mean... pastor is away you cannot have students, licentiates, or men from other denominations preach for you (unless you allow all of those men to administer the sacrament).
> 
> I think this needs to be considered as well.



Don't see a problem there. In that case, you just wouldn't have communion.


----------



## py3ak (May 15, 2010)

Willem van Oranje said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> > Not quite. The section of the confession which you noted does not simply say "the sacrament" (i.e., the supper), but "the sacraments" (including baptism). If the logic really tended toward what you state, then it would not just speak to the frequency of the supper, but baptism as well. The passover meal, for instance (among many other OT feasts and ceremonies) was an "ordinary" part of the OT testament worship, but only happened once a year.
> ...


 
Hardly, since he didn't in fact quote you at all.


----------



## Romans922 (May 15, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> We have the Lord's Supper, 3 or 4 times a year. Some Free Church congregations have it once a year and some 12 times a year.
> 
> If you wish it more frequently you can visit other congregations when they are having it.
> 
> ...



Renewing our faith in the covenant, not renewing the covenant itself (making a covenant over and over). Might need clarity in this area when speaking to American Presbyterians. We are dealing with a certain TE (and others who follow him) who holds to the latter tangled up in Federal Vision, rather than the former (Standards view).

This man's view is tied up in the so called "covenant renewal worship".


The former is found in the WLC 171, "*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 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 would in fact be renewing our faith in the covenant.


----------



## au5t1n (May 15, 2010)

nleshelman said:


> One of the practical problems with weekly communion is that when your priest... I mean... pastor


 
Is this supposed to be an implication that those who practice weekly communion all do so for popish reasons? Many simply view it as consistent with the practice of the church in Scripture, and do not wish to let false groups prevent them from observing what they view as Biblical.

---------- Post added at 08:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 PM ----------




fredtgreco said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> > Is it disputed by anyone that the NT church had the Lord's supper each Lord's day and considered it a regular element of the worship service? I understand the practical arguments and the allowance for different frequencies -- that's all well and good. But what I am asking here is whether there is any question what the NT church's practice was.
> ...


 
Thank you. I guess I just think it makes sense that the Lord's supper would be an element of the Lord's day worship service along with singing, preaching, etc. From what I know of the early church writings (not that they are normative for us, but they are informative all the same), this was the practice in the post-apostolic period, even if we cannot be 100% sure from the text that it was this way from the apostolic period. I guess in light of the lack of definitive evidence, it's a good thing communion frequency is left to the judgment of the session.


----------



## dudley (May 15, 2010)

My original fear of weekly communion might have been as Austin said "to be an implication that those who practice weekly communion all do so for popish reasons" I am curious however, it appears that about 75 to 80 % of Reformed churches celebrate communion once a month or less and yet the argument often presented for more frequent celebration of the Lords Supper is that we must determine our worship practices on the basis of the Bible. And so if we were to determine that it appears that weekly or more regular than once a month communion was biblical in the early church than how did we move away from that? It also appears that the reformers particularly Calvin advocated weekly communion. My question is how did we as Reformed Protestants move away from weekly and frequent communion?


----------



## N. Eshelman (May 16, 2010)

austinww said:


> nleshelman said:
> 
> 
> > One of the practical problems with weekly communion is that when your priest... I mean... pastor
> ...




Nope. It was a joke. Each session has a right to decided what is best for their congregation (in Presbyterianism). That is the position of the Westminster Assembly. Dutch Reformed people are bound to a quarterly and holy day schedule. No problem with that either. 

With that said, My PERSONAL issue with weekly communion is that when friends of mine do not have it they feel like they were really cheated out of something. Isn't preaching of the Word the center of Reformed worship? 

Again- go ahead presbyters: Have weekly communion in your congregations. That's fine. As you do it- keep the Word preached at the center.


----------



## Peairtach (May 16, 2010)

Romans922 said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > We have the Lord's Supper, 3 or 4 times a year. Some Free Church congregations have it once a year and some 12 times a year.
> ...



I agree that the language of "Covenant Renewal" is maybe (very) unhappy, and other language should be used.


----------



## au5t1n (May 16, 2010)

nleshelman said:


> With that said, My PERSONAL issue with weekly communion is that when friends of mine do not have it they feel like they were really cheated out of something. Isn't preaching of the Word the center of Reformed worship?


 
Thanks for clarifying. I wonder, though, whether we shouldn't feel the same way about missing the Lord's supper as if we missed another element of the worship service. Preaching, being the centerpiece, may not be the best example, but take another element - singing psalms, the prayers, etc. If the Lord's supper was designed to be a weekly element along with these (acknowledging that this would need to be established), why should we necessarily feel better about it being missing than singing psalms? We don't want to Romanize, no doubt, but Christ obviously intended it for our good, and I don't think the existence of error should deter our practice. _Abusus non tollet usum_, or so they say.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 16, 2010)

austinww said:


> nleshelman said:
> 
> 
> > With that said, My PERSONAL issue with weekly communion is that when friends of mine do not have it they feel like they were really cheated out of something. Isn't preaching of the Word the center of Reformed worship?
> ...


 Austin,

The irony is that virtually every Reformed congregation that has weekly communion fails your test. When was the last time such a church had the Lord's Supper at BOTH the morning and evening service? Apparently it is not significant enough to do that.

By the way - I had a nice chat with Aaron today; he was with us for worship.


----------



## au5t1n (May 16, 2010)

fredtgreco said:


> The irony is that virtually every Reformed congregation that has weekly communion fails your test. When was the last time such a church had the Lord's Supper at BOTH the morning and evening service? Apparently it is not significant enough to do that.



Fair point. Some elements of worship are going to be repetitive by nature, though (e.g. you might sing five songs in a service and only have one sermon) while others will be something that there is no reason to repeat (e.g. the Lord's supper). But I'm glad it is left to the session. I can see the case for spacing it out; I'm just a bit confused when I see false groups used as the primary reason, in many of these discussions, for choosing the frequency of communion (whether it be that we don't want to look like Catholics, FVers, paedocommunionists, you name it). Anyway, thank you for explaining that the exegetical case for weekly observance is not as clear as I thought it was.



fredtgreco said:


> By the way - I had a nice chat with Aaron today; he was with us for worship.


 
Good to hear. What was he there for? Not that one needs an excuse to visit your church, of course.


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist (May 17, 2010)

I prefer weekly communion. I used to be terribly opposed to the idea. I think that it is hinted at in Acts. Also, from church history we are fairly certain that the early church practiced weekly communion and John Calvin appears to favor it also. However, it is not a test of orthodoxy. Scripture does not specifically tell us that we are to celebrate the Lord's Supper every Sunday morning. At the Lord's Supper we are being spiritually fed by Christ himself as we by faith partake of the bread and wine. Why then, if it is at all possible, would we not want that?


----------



## Willem van Oranje (May 21, 2010)

nleshelman said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> > nleshelman said:
> ...




Without the word preached (including the words of institution), the sacrament is a mere empty sign. But joined with the word, it is a great comfort and a true means of grace, a God-ordained picture, a visual representation of Christ and the New Covenant which saves us, and a great boone to our assurance. Let us thank God for this. Eucharistomen ton Theon dia auton!


----------

