# Communion at home ???



## amishrockstar (Aug 8, 2007)

Yesterday there was a discussion at a 'small group' over whether communion could/should be administered AT HOME by a father to his family. One of the guys there said that he isn't quite decided on it, but he is seriously considering it. 
Any thoughts on this? More importantly, any _*scripture*_ that would either defend the idea (ie, the Bible is silent or would allow for such a practice), or that would condemn the practice (ie, the Bible says that only ordained clergy-- Pastors, elders, deacons-- can administer it or they MUST be present)???
*THANKS,*
Matthew


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 8, 2007)

The _locus classicus_ text defending the uniqueness of the Ministry, for the "right administration" of the Sacraments, is 1 Cor. 4:1ff: "1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and *stewards of the mysteries *of God." It is because they are Ministers of the Word, that they are also Ministers of Sacrament. The two go together, and in fact the latter is so dependent upon the former (_contra_ the Romanists, who have "masses" all the time without any preaching) that we teach there ought to be no Sacrament where there is no preaching to accompany it.

Why does someone want to adminster the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper at home? Is it because he thinks that there is something "in" the Supper, or "in" that ritual participation that will bless him, or his family? The POINT of the Supper is in its other protestant designation: _Communion_. It is a communal meal, a ceremonial meal, meant to be eaten by the FAMILY of God. Furthermore, Jesus is the Master of the Feast who is spreading the table. We are "sitting down with him" in heaven to eat and drink with him (Mt. 26:29, Eph. 2:6), together with all saints. Now, he is not visible, nor "present" with us in flesh, any more than we can be with him in heaven other than in spirit. So, his Ministers serve and administer his Table, as his hands and feet, and teach as his tongue.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Aug 8, 2007)

A question brother Bruce. What do you do in the case of a bedridden saint? I have not been personally involved in this type of thing but I know of a church which will go to the home of a member of thier church and hold a service (usually several members will go along with the pastor) and hold communion. I would like your thoughts on that brother from a Presbyterian point of view.


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Aug 8, 2007)

I am not convinced that the Scriptures really teach that the Lord's Table has to administered by the elders/government of the Church. Perhaps my intial response comes from the "priesthood of the believer" understanding. 

Celebrating the Lord's Supper is a remembrance of the death of Christ and a proclaimation of His death till He comes. I can't think of a Scripture prohibiting this in a man's family. Yet we need not a prohibition. 1 Cor 4:1 doesn't tell us that the apostle is referring to the ordinance of Baptism or the Lord's Supper. I have always read that passage as the mysteries of God being the Word of God and the revelation of Jesus Christ. 

Can someone who hold the view provide more detailed Scriptural support for the view that only an ordained minister can administer the ordinances? Either by positive precept or example would be greatly appreciated. I will continue to search the Scriptures as well.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 8, 2007)

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. 27:



> 4. There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.a
> 
> a. Mat 28:19-20, 19; 1 Cor 4:1; 11:20, 23; Heb 5:4.



Westminster Form of Presbyterian Church Government:



> Pastors.
> THe Pastor is an ordinary and perpetuall Officer in the Church, Jer. 3:15,16,17. Prophecying of the time of the Gospel, 1 Pet. 5:2,3,4; Ephes. 4:11,12,13.
> First, It belongs to his office;
> To pray for and with his flock as the mouth of the people unto God, Acts 6:2,3,4; Acts 20:36. Where Preaching and Prayer are joyned as severall parts of the same Office, James 5:14,15. The Office of the Elder, that is the Pastor, is to pray for the sick, even in private, to which a blessing is especially promised, much more therefore ought he to performe this in the publike execution of his Office as a part thereof, 1 Cor. 14. vers. 15, 16.
> ...



George Gillespie, _Whether Any Other But A Minister, Lawfully Called And Ordained, May Administer The Sacraments, Baptism And The Lord's Supper_


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 8, 2007)

James:
The manner in which you describe the situation is typical of how a church like ours would handle it. The pastor and an elder, and hopefully a few other invitees (keeping space limitations in mind) would visit a home, or nursing situation, or hospital, and basically hold a normal (if abbreviated) worship service, including the preaching of the Word, followed by the Lord's Supper.


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Aug 8, 2007)

I will ask a few questions on the WCF in this regard. Concerning the first part only. 

They site Matt 28:19-20, commonly called today the great commission, as Scripture support that only ministers/elders can administer the "sacraments." Also contained in this Scripture is the teaching of all nations everything Christ commanded. We all know this is an often used passage for evangelistic endeavors. Is the WCF teaching these things are only for ministers/elders? How does this affect the practice of "lay people" preaching to neighbors, open air, et? Since this passage is sited as for ministers/elders, as someone who is not a minister/elder is this passage not directed to me?

The WCF also sites Heb 5:4 in support of its statement. In its immeditate context, Heb 5:4 is concerning Christ. 

4And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. 

5So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. 

How is this applicable to ministers/elders?


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Aug 8, 2007)

Does the following statement essentially say the same thing as the WCF and the LBCF? 

"The persons designed by Christ, to dispense this Ordinance, the Scriptures hold forth to be a preaching Disciple, it being no where tied to a particular Church, Officer, or person extraordinarily sent, the Commission enjoining the administration, being given to them under no other consideration, but as considered Disciples." Isa. 8:16; Matt. 28:16-19; John 4:1, 2; Acts 20:7; Matt. 26:26.


----------



## Coram Deo (Aug 8, 2007)

The great commission in Matthew 28 is for the Elders of the church not for the layman... Christ is speaking to his apostles or leaders of the church in the context of Matthew 28.....

Layman still have other scripture passages for HOW they are to evangelize but Matthew 28 is not one of them....

A layman can not baptize, teach, and make disciples of all nations. That is the job of a minister..... 



Reformed Baptist said:


> They site Matt 28:19-20, commonly called today the great commission, as Scripture support that only ministers/elders can administer the "sacraments." Also contained in this Scripture is the teaching of all nations everything Christ commanded. We all know this is an often used passage for evangelistic endeavors. Is the WCF teaching these things are only for ministers/elders? How does this affect the practice of "lay people" preaching to neighbors, open air, et? Since this passage is sited as for ministers/elders, as someone who is not a minister/elder is this passage not directed to me?


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Aug 8, 2007)

thunaer said:


> The great commission in Matthew 28 is for the Elders of the church not for the layman... Christ is speaking to his apostles or leaders of the church in the context of Matthew 28.....
> 
> Layman still have other scripture passages for HOW they are to evangelize but Matthew 28 is not one of them....
> 
> A layman can not baptize, teach, and make disciples of all nations. That is the job of a minister.....




Thank you for your direct answer. I had no idea that was the view of some.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 8, 2007)

Re: Heb. 5:4
The passage does indeed speak of Christ, but in such a way as _applies_ a universal truth unto him, namely, "NO MAN," that is to say _no one in general,_ "taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is *called *of God...." The specific office designated is that of preistly mediator, but this is no less true of any of the other offices: prophet and king. NO ONE in Israel had any business setting himself up as a priest (to rival Aaron, whom God had appointed, with his sons), as king (to rival David, and even Jereboam received an interim "call" by God, although he forfeited it), or as prophet (note Jeremiah's oft repeated: "they have run, but I have not sent them").

Likewise, in the New Testament, none are Ministers of the King (compare as with earthly kings, Ambassador So-and-so, Minister of Defense So-and-so, etc.) but those who are acknowledged as having been commissioned by Him into his service. There are identifiable duties and responsibilites attached to _office_ in Christ's Church.

It simply does not comport with the divine appointments to say that the "priesthood of all believers" *levels* everything in Christ's kingdom, making everyone in effect "a Minister" (capital M). No more than that all ISRAEL in the Old Testament were Priests (capital P) though they were identified by God himself as "a kingdom of priests," Exodus 19:6.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 8, 2007)

thunaer said:


> The great commission in Matthew 28 is for the Elders of the church not for the layman... Christ is speaking to his apostles or leaders of the church in the context of Matthew 28.....
> 
> Layman still have other scripture passages for HOW they are to evangelize but Matthew 28 is not one of them....
> 
> A layman can not baptize, teach, and make disciples of all nations. That is the job of a minister.....



 This issue about the Great Commission and who may lawfully preach, administer sacraments, etc. has been debated here many times before, along with the duty of laymen to _witness_, not preach, and be always ready to give an answer for the hope that lies within us. Bruce once gave an eloquent defense of preaching belonging to the office of ambassadors of Christ (ie., ministers). 

There is a helpful essay on the nature of the Great Commission by Brian Schwertley. In it he says:



> Fourth, fulfilling the great commission involves the administration of the sacraments (baptism and the Lord’s supper). The Bible teaches that only lawfully ordained ministers of the word are to administer the sacraments. Ministers are shepherds appointed to feed the flock of God (Jer. 3:15; Eph. 4:11; Ac. 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2). Part of this feeding involves the administration of the Lord’s supper which is a means of grace. This truth is supported by Ephesians 4:11-13 which names the offices given for the teaching and perfecting of the saints. “Is not the administration of the sacraments a perfecting of the saints, of the work of the ministry, of the edifying of the body of Christ?”17 Only some are appointed to such a task. Furthermore only ministers of the word are referred to as “stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor. 4:1), “and there is nothing which more properly belongeth to the ecclesiastical stewards than the dispensation of the sacraments.”18 Gillespie writes: “We have clear and convincing examples in the New Testament, that the sacraments were administered by public ministers, called and appointed thereunto, as baptism by John (John i. 33, ‘He hath sent me to baptize’), and frequently by the apostles, in the story of Acts. The Lord’s supper, administered by Christ himself (whose example in these things imitable we are bidden [to] follow, who also himself commanded touto poiete; this do); and by the Apostle Paul, Acts xx. 7, 11. So ‘the breaking of bread’ is joined with ‘the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship,’ Acts ii. 4…. So that a lawful minister may in faith administer, and the receivers receive from him in faith, the sacraments, having Scripture warrants for so doing; but there is neither any commission from Christ to such as are no church officers to administer the sacraments; nor can there any clear example be found in the New Testament, of administering either the one sacrament or the other by any person who can be proved not to have been a minister lawfully ordained. Therefore such persons cannot in faith administer, nor others in faith receive from them, either baptism or the Lord’s supper.”19



Archibald Hall, _Gospel Worship_, Vol. 1, Ch. 7, Section 8, pp. 260-262:



> SECTION 8
> 
> I shall close this chapter on the sacraments in general, by showing, Who have authority to administer them. This point does not require much to be said on it, after what has been already advanced on the ordinance of preaching the gospel. See section 2.3. [p. 97]
> 
> ...



On Heb. 5.4, William Tong says in Matthew Henry's commentary:



> In this chapter the apostle continues his discourse upon the priesthood of Christ, a sweet subject, which he would not too soon dismiss. And here, I. He explains the nature of the priestly office in general, ver. 1-3. II. The proper and regular call there must be to this office, ver. 4-6. III. The requisite qualifications for the work, ver. 7-9. IV. The peculiar order of the priesthood of Christ; it was not after the order of Aaron, but of Melchisedec, ver. 6, 7, 10. V. He reproves the Hebrews, that they had not made those improvements in knowledge which might have made them capable of looking into the more abstruse and mysterious parts of scripture, ver. 11-14.
> ...
> V. How the high priest was to be called of God. He must have both an internal and external call to his office: For no man taketh this honour to himself (v. 4), that is, no man ought to do it, no man can do it legally; if any does it, he must be reckoned a usurper, and treated accordingly. Here observe, 1. The office of the priesthood was a very great honour. To be employed to stand between God and man, one while representing God and his will to men, at another time representing man and his case to God, and dealing between them about matters of the highest importance—entrusted on both sides with the honour of God and the happiness of man—must render the office very honourable. 2. The priesthood is an office and honour that no man ought to take to himself; if he does, he can expect no success in it, nor any reward for it, only from himself. He is an intruder who is not called of God, as was Aaron. Observe, (1.) God is the fountain of all honour, especially true spiritual honour. He is the fountain of true authority, whether he calls any to the priesthood in an extraordinary way, as he did Aaron, or in an ordinary way, as he called his successors. (2.) Those only can expect assistance from God, and acceptance with him, and his presence and blessing on them and their administrations, that are called of God; others may expect a blast instead of a blessing.



Obadiah Hughes in Matthew Poole's Annotations on the same verse:



> Heb 5:4. This connecteth the last thing describing the typical Levitical priesthood, their call to it. And no man taketh this honour unto himself; not any person whatsoever hath or can lawfully take to himself the honourable office of a high priest, so as to be the author or end of it. Many have usurped this office, and others have distributed it contrary to God's law, whose priesthood, offerings, and ministry are no true ones, especially where men are self-officiating, corruptly managing of it, as Eli's sons and Jeroboam's priests, or self-benefiting by it, 1 Sam 2:13, etc.; Mic 3:11. This was so honourable an office as it was united to the princedom in Melchisedec and Jethro. But he that is called of God, as was Aaron; he that is according to God's law, (the Author of this priesthood, its work and success,) qualified in himself, separated from others, and actually honoured by God with it, he ought to take this office and execute his work in it to God's glory, depending on him for his blessing. Aaron is the particular instance of the Divine call to this office. God separated his tribe, family, and person for his service in the room of the firstborn: God qualified him for it, entailed the high priesthood to his seed and offspring with the subordinate priesthood. He solemnly consecrated him by Moses, confirmed him in his work by fire from heaven at his first sacrifice, and vindicates his own call of him to it by the blossoming rod, and destroying the rivals with him for it, Exod 28:29-30; Num 16:35; Num 17:5.



Fisher's Catechism:



> Q. 26.15. May any man intrude himself into the office of an ambassador of Christ?
> 
> A. No man may lawfully take "this honour to himself but he that is called of God, as was Aaron," Heb 5:4.
> 
> ...


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Aug 8, 2007)

Are those the same kind of thoughts that imprisoned Christians (Baptists) for preaching without a liscence?


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 8, 2007)

Reformed Baptist said:


> Are those the same kind of thoughts that imprisoned Christians (Baptists) for preaching without a liscence?



Geoff, just as a gentle warning, I would be cautious bringing up previous infractions against Baptists (or any other group represented here on the PB). While you may be right in what you are asking, it is sometimes best to let those things remain in the past, especially since it is difficult to determine intent and intonation on a bulletin board. In other words, people can't tell whether you have a serious question or if you are just trying to sarcastically stir the pot.


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Aug 8, 2007)

Calvibaptist said:


> Geoff, just as a gentle warning, I would be cautious bringing up previous infractions against Baptists (or any other group represented here on the PB). While you may be right in what you are asking, it is sometimes best to let those things remain in the past, especially since it is difficult to determine intent and intonation on a bulletin board. In other words, people can't tell whether you have a serious question or if you are just trying to sarcastically stir the pot.




I see. It was an observation, not sarcasm. I think I have a better understanding how Christians in the past could have persecuted their brethren.


----------



## Kevin (Aug 8, 2007)

Reformed Baptist said:


> Are those the same kind of thoughts that imprisoned Christians (Baptists) for preaching without a liscence?



yes, and we are comming for you...Mwahaha(insert maniacal laughter here)


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Aug 8, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Re: Heb. 5:4
> The passage does indeed speak of Christ, but in such a way as _applies_ a universal truth unto him, namely, "NO MAN," that is to say _no one in general,_ "taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is *called *of God...." The specific office designated is that of preistly mediator, but this is no less true of any of the other offices: prophet and king. NO ONE in Israel had any business setting himself up as a priest (to rival Aaron, whom God had appointed, with his sons), as king (to rival David, and even Jereboam received an interim "call" by God, although he forfeited it), or as prophet (note Jeremiah's oft repeated: "they have run, but I have not sent them").
> 
> Likewise, in the New Testament, none are Ministers of the King (compare as with earthly kings, Ambassador So-and-so, Minister of Defense So-and-so, etc.) but those who are acknowledged as having been commissioned by Him into his service. There are identifiable duties and responsibilites attached to _office_ in Christ's Church.
> ...



Thank you for the thoughtful and reasonable reply. I will have to agree to disagree at this point.


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Aug 8, 2007)

Kevin said:


> yes, and we are comming for you...Mwahaha(insert maniacal laughter here)



I am ready....


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 8, 2007)

Reformed Baptist said:


> Are those the same kind of thoughts that imprisoned Christians (Baptists) for preaching without a liscence?



I don't take offense at either the question, or the spirit it was offered.

But we ought, as Doug has stated, be wary about anachronistic projection. The question of whether those persecutions were right or wrong is completely distinct from the question of whether there should have been "unlicensed" preaching, or who may have been doing it.

Furthermore, not only "Christians (Baptists)" were imprisoned, but non-conformist Presbyterians (non-Christians?) were also turned out of their pulpits and livings, hounded, imprisoned, etc., for preaching following the Great Ejection of 1662. It makes little sense to compare our "scars", as if they told the tale of legitimacy. Only in Scotland was the WCF ever elevated to the status of national-church constitution. And it was in Scotland that our covenanting fathers were attacked in fields _maintaining_ their WCF Presbyterianism against the depredations of the state and bishops. So, I'm certainly not confident that it is fair to place any onus on the simple WCF declarations concerning the safeguarding of the "Ministry of the Word and Sacraments" as if they lead inevitably, somehow, to the sanctioning of civil persecutions.


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Aug 8, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I don't take offense at either the question, or the spirit it was offered.
> 
> But we ought, as Doug has stated, be wary about anachronistic projection. The question of whether those persecutions were right or wrong is completely distinct from the question of whether there should have been "unlicensed" preaching, or who may have been doing it.
> 
> Furthermore, not only "Christians (Baptists)" were imprisoned, but non-conformist Presbyterians (non-Christians?) were also turned out of their pulpits and livings, hounded, imprisoned, etc., for preaching following the Great Ejection of 1662. It makes little sense to compare our "scars", as if they told the tale of legitimacy. Only in Scotland was the WCF ever elevated to the status of national-church constitution. And it was in Scotland that our covenanting fathers were attacked in fields _maintaining_ their WCF Presbyterianism against the depredations of the state and bishops. So, I'm certainly not confident that it is fair to place any onus on the simple WCF declarations concerning the safeguarding of the "Ministry of the Word and Sacraments" as if they lead inevitably, somehow, to the sanctioning of civil persecutions.



I agree. It takes the depravity of man among other things to do such things. May the Lord continue the freedom we enjoy today.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Aug 8, 2007)

Getting back to the OP.

I'm not theologian by any means. But my understanding is that the Sacraments are "Sacraments of the Church" not "The Sacraments of each individual Christian Family (or indeed individual Christian)", and in ordinary situations should be administered only in the context of corporate worship.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Aug 8, 2007)

I agree that normally the administration of the sacraments are only to be done by ordained elders...

My beef with the standards is they don't make any allowance for the 'exceptional' case.

For instance...Philip was not an elder but he baptized in the book of Acts. Some try to get around this by saying that Philip was in the office of an evangelist by the time he was baptizing but that is nowhere in the text. I see the case of Philip as exceptional...not setting the standard. 

The question I ask is, "why can't I have my deacon administer the Lord's Supper if I am away on a given Lord's Day?" (Currently I am the only ordained elder at Christ Reformed Church and am being supplemented by another session.) The answer I have received is because it is against the standards but I have yet to hear a good biblical arguement. This is only a minor beef with me as it is dealing with an exception, not the rule.

This of course does nothing for going all willy nilly and letting anyone administer the sacraments as they please.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Aug 8, 2007)

prespastor said:


> I agree that normally the administration of the sacraments are only to be done by ordained elders...
> 
> My beef with the standards is they don't make any allowance for the 'exceptional' case.
> 
> ...




Good questions. Any advice out there regarding the "exceptional circumstance"?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 8, 2007)

Pastor Bob,
Isn't one of the questions, though, needing to be asked in "difficult" situations, "Is there a good reason to wait?" A question of order, a question of Providence, a question of patience.

The situation you describe is not simply a question of "What will we be missing, if we don't get the Lord's Supper this week/month/quarter/however long?" but "What will we miss out on if we declare our situation 'desperate', 'exceptional', or 'extraordinary', and just go ahead and do what feels right?"

There was a time when Abraham thought his situation demanded some "flexibilbity," and you'd have been hard-pressed to explain from an earthly standpoint why his logic was faulty.

Will the people of God, placed in your care, benefit from an enforced waiting period--one that is instructive on the subjects of the importance of church-connectivity, and the vital premium of qualified leaders, to name two--if at the end of the wait (both the temporary, as when your augmented session is present; and the permanent, as when your own elders are elected and ordained) their joy is multiplied?

I do not know whether your specific congregation (relative to your denomination) follows the p-c allowance of your denomination, but I can't help but wonder if the urge within you is at least partly a product of conflicting claims of authority over this specific arena. Are the elders responsible, ultimately, for determining who is served the Lord's Supper in your church, or is it heads of households?


----------



## Scott (Aug 8, 2007)

An excerpt from calvin on Heb. 5:4:


> . . . But though this has been said with reference to what is here handled, yet we may hence draw a general truth, — that no government is to be set up in the Church by the will of men, but that we are to wait for the command of God, and also that we ought to follow a certain rule in electing ministers, so that no one may intrude according to his own humor. Both these things ought to be distinctly noticed for the Apostle here speaks not of persons only, but also of the office itself; nay, he denies that the office which men appoint without God’s command is lawful and divine. For as it appertains to God only to rule his Church, so he claims this right as his own, that is, to prescribe the way and manner of administration. . .
> 
> This also ought to be held good as to persons, that no individual is of himself to seize on this honor without public authority. I speak now of offices divinely appointed. At the same time it may sometimes be, that one, not called by God, is yet to be tolerated, however little he may be approved, provided the office itself be divine and approved by God; for many often creep in through ambition or some bad motives, whose call has no evidence; and yet they are not to be immediately rejected, especially when this cannot be done by the public decision of the Church.


----------



## KMK (Aug 8, 2007)

The Lord ordained these three distinct institutions: The family, the church, and the state. They have similarities and differences. The sacrements were given to the church. Administration of justice was given to the state. The raising of children was given to the family.

It is not the job of the church to administer justice in the state. It is not the job of the state to raise children. And it is not the job of the family to distribute the sacrements.

If one believes that the Lord's Supper is for household use, then wouldn't he also have to believe in household baptism?

Also if one believes that the Lord's Supper is for household use, then wouldn't he also have to believe that it is for state use as well? If there is nothing wrong with a father distributing the elemnts to his family why would there be anything wrong with the president distributing the elements to us citizens?

As stated above, the question should be, "Why would a father desire to administer sacraments to his family instead of allowing the church to do so? It smacks of pride.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Aug 8, 2007)

Contra_Mundum,

I just wrote you a lengthy response and then the board deleted it when I had to then login to post; a pity.

I don't have time to re-write it 

Here is a much shorter response...

Why didn't Philip wait for an elder to arrive in Samaria? I mean...it wasn't that far from Jerusalem. He could have just told them "hey guys, we don't want to just do what feels right" or explained that since faith alone is all that is required for justification (something I trust we all agree on), there would be no harm in waiting for an elder.

Finally, this is not some 'urge' within me nor is this my practice as my denomination is strictly confessional on this issue. I am just sharing some relevant thoughts. 



Contra_Mundum said:


> Pastor Bob,
> Isn't one of the questions, though, needing to be asked in "difficult" situations, "Is there a good reason to wait?" A question of order, a question of Providence, a question of patience.
> 
> The situation you describe is not simply a question of "What will we be missing, if we don't get the Lord's Supper this week/month/quarter/however long?" but "What will we miss out on if we declare our situation 'desperate', 'exceptional', or 'extraordinary', and just go ahead and do what feels right?"
> ...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 8, 2007)

prespastor said:


> Contra_Mundum,
> 
> I just wrote you a lengthy response and then the board deleted it when I had to then login to post; a pity.
> 
> I don't have time to re-write it



Been there, more than once...

As for the Philip situation, I'm not one of those who questions his status as evangelist at this time, so that's really not an issue for me to wrestle with. It's only a question if he's merely a deacon, which lower-office identity is called into question precisely by his actions. If he wasn't authorized to baptize, I don't think he would have. God was doing all kinds of extraordinary things with him. He was certainly a special character. I'm basically denying the validity of "exceptional" circumstances, until I'm shown one that I simply cannot deny.

As far as my other comments, re. p-c, I can only operate from what the CPC denominational web-site states, and knowing first-hand the practice of a relative of mine in one of your denominational churches. Being aware of those things, I just wondered the question of whether you would have this same internal conflict (that you admit; not that you intend to flout your vows) if those facts were otherwise. Believe me, there was nothing else intended.


----------



## SRoper (Aug 8, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> James:
> The manner in which you describe the situation is typical of how a church like ours would handle it. The pastor and an elder, and hopefully a few other invitees (keeping space limitations in mind) would visit a home, or nursing situation, or hospital, and basically hold a normal (if abbreviated) worship service, including the preaching of the Word, followed by the Lord's Supper.



Rev. Buchanan, what makes what you describe different than what the WCF condemns in Chapter 29:

"Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other alone; ... [is] contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ."

Is the difference the fact that there is a plurality of elders and it is accompanied by preaching?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 8, 2007)

A.A. Hodge on WCF 27.4:



> Our Confession also adds that no one has a right to administer the sacraments save a lawfully ordained minister. This is not said in the interest of any priestly theory of the ministry, as if there were any grace or grace-conferring virtue transmitted by ordination in succession from the apostles to the person ordained. But since the Church is an organized society, under laws executed by regularly appointed officers, it is evident that ordinances -- which are badges of Church membership, the gates of the fold, the instruments of discipline, and seals of the covenant formed by the great Head of the Church with his living members -- can properly be administered only by the highest legal officers of the Church, those who are commissioners as ambassadors for Christ to treat in his name with men. 1 Cor. iv. 1; 2 Cor. v. 20.



Robert Shaw on WCF 27.4:



> We acknowledge only two sacraments instituted by Christ in the gospel, and these are baptism and the Lord's supper; the former being the sign and seal of our spiritual birth, and the latter of our spiritual nourishment. The Church of Rome has added five spurious sacraments–ordination, marriage, confirmation, penance, and extreme unction. None of these have any divine appointment as sacraments; and the three last, as used by Papists, have no warrant at all from Scripture. None of them are seals of the covenant of grace, and, therefore, they are no sacraments, but are to be considered as gross corruptions of the purity and simplicity of the Christian ritual. *In opposition, also, to the Church of Rome, which permits laymen and women to administer the sacrament of baptism in cases of necessity, our Confession asserts that none but a minister of the Word, lawfully ordained, has any warrant to dispense the sacraments.*


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 8, 2007)

SRoper said:


> Rev. Buchanan, what makes what you describe different than what the WCF condemns in Chapter 29:
> 
> "Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other alone; ... [is] contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ."
> 
> Is the difference the fact that there is a plurality of elders and it is accompanied by preaching?



Yes. The difference is that it is a corporate worship service, open to all, where the other elements of worship are found (singing, prayer, preaching). What is different is only the place, and the place is not sacred. Now if the pastor took two elders and forbade all the rest of the congregation from participation, that would be a problem.

The "private masses" described in the WCF were exclusive; it was a way for the rich and powerful to _avoid_ communion and fellowship with the congregation. That is obviously contrary to the nature of the sacrament.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 8, 2007)

SRoper said:


> Rev. Buchanan, what makes what you describe different than what the WCF condemns in Chapter 29:
> 
> "Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other alone; ... [is] contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ."
> 
> Is the difference the fact that there is a plurality of elders and it is accompanied by preaching?



That is precisely the difference. What is being described is a "public" meeting, as are all our church functions. The full church is represented by the session, and the Word is preached. An announcement is made, and the people of the covenant are invited to the service, at which there will be served the meal spread for all of them. The main point is: *we are not simply "doing a Lord's Supper" for a private person.* We are having a service, with the Lord's Supper, and *including* the shut-in.


----------

