# Are We Neglecting the Lord’s Supper?



## sdesocio (Oct 18, 2011)

I just put a new article up over at Vintage73: Are We Neglecting the Lord’s Supper: 3 Starter Questions.


----------



## ProtestantBankie (Oct 18, 2011)

Don't have time to read that just now, but have bookmarked it for a later browse.


----------



## Philip (Oct 18, 2011)

Here are my thoughts:

There is not significant theological disagreement over the LS, at least not from what I can tell. Most, if questioned, would say that they hold to Calvin's view.

However, practically speaking, most, I find, are Zwiinglians. The LS does not share primacy of place with preaching, which, if one practically held Calvin's view, I think it would. We don't tend to treat the LS as a sacrament, that is, as essential to our Christian walk and life together. We tend to give primacy of place to preaching, and thus the LS gets downplayed on a week-to-week basis.

That's my perception, anyway.


----------



## sdesocio (Oct 18, 2011)

Phil do you mind putting that comment up over at the blog? I think it would help the conversation.


----------



## saintandsinner77 (Oct 18, 2011)

I agree with Philip- most reformed churches do not practice a weekly observance as Calvin had desired and which the NT seems to suggest due to the faulty reasoning that it will become "too common," yet people do not use that logic when it comes to weekly preaching and praying. The sacrament has the word attached to it (Take eat this is my body, do this in remembrance of me), so if we believe the word should be preached weekly, then the LS should occur weekly as well. Not only that, but if we believe the LS strengthens our faith and we are nourished by Christ, then why wouldn't we want it weekly- do we only need to be nourished and strengthened once a month or once a quarter? Doesn't make sense...


----------



## Andres (Oct 18, 2011)

saintandsinner77 said:


> I agree with Philip- most reformed churches do not practice a weekly observance as Calvin had desired and which the NT seems to suggest due to the faulty reasoning that it will become "too common," yet people do not use that logic when it comes to weekly preaching and praying. The sacrament has the word attached to it (Take eat this is my body, do this in remembrance of me), so if we believe the word should be preached weekly, then the LS should occur weekly as well. Not only that, but if we believe the LS strengthens our faith and we are nourished by Christ, then why wouldn't we want it weekly- do we only need to be nourished and strengthened once a month or once a quarter? Doesn't make sense...



 I've held these same sentiments. I recommend Robert Letham's short book, _The Lord's Supper: Eternal Word in Broken Bread_. It was instrumental in helping me come to what I believe is a proper view of the Lord's Supper.


----------



## Philip (Oct 18, 2011)

I think part of recovering reformed sacramentology has to be the recognition that the historic reformed view of LS (a la Calvin, Bucer, and Cranmer) is closer to the Lutheran view than either is to a memorialist view. Further, in my humble opinion, Calvin's understanding is the only one that is capable of recognizing LS as a means of grace in which Christ is really present while at the same time preserving a truly orthodox view of the two natures of Christ. I have argued with high-church Anglican friends on this point and I think that if our practice of communion were more emphasized, it would be easier for them to take our professed sacramentology more seriously.

I think it also important to recognize that in Calvin's day, when the medieval church had celebrated communion as little as twice a year, in some parishes (and even then the parishioners would only partake of the bread), the switch to weekly communion was truly radical.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 18, 2011)

I agree that our Standards have a much higher view of the Supper than the average churchgoer (and Minister) really understands. However this is a symptom of the much greater problem of just general ignorance of the what the WCF and WSC and WLC teach in general (especially Ch. 22 of the WCF).


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 18, 2011)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I agree that our Standards have a much higher view of the Supper than the average churchgoer (and Minister) really understands. However this is a symptom of the much greater problem of just general ignorance of the what the WCF and WSC and WLC teach in general (especially Ch. 22 of the WCF).



I really don't understand how this would support the OP (not pointing that out toward you, Ben, but just in general). The near universal practice of the divines themselves was non-weekly communion. If a Westministerian "high view" of the sacraments necessitates (or even encourages) weekly communion, someone should have told the divines.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 18, 2011)

Just as a point of clarification I was speaking not towards the issue of regularity but the efficacy of the sacraments.


----------



## Philip (Oct 18, 2011)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Just as a point of clarification I was speaking not towards the issue of regularity but the efficacy of the sacraments.



Ditto that. I don't think I can point to a passage of Scripture that would command us as to how often to celebrate the LS.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 18, 2011)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Just as a point of clarification I was speaking not towards the issue of regularity but the efficacy of the sacraments.


I understand, Ben. Your post was just a useful touchstone to make my point. You did not touch on regularity, but whenever this topic is mentioned, people come out of the woodwork to declare that somehow a "Reformed view of the sacraments" mandates a weekly view. Then the chorus turns to Calvin and his supposed vehemence for weekly communion, when in reality he mentioned (his his whole corpus) the same once in a comment.


----------



## Prufrock (Oct 18, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> However, practically speaking, most, I find, are Zwiinglians. The LS does not share primacy of place with preaching, which, if one practically held Calvin's view, I think it would. We don't tend to treat the LS as a sacrament, that is, as essential to our Christian walk and life together. We tend to give primacy of place to preaching, and thus the LS gets downplayed on a week-to-week basis.



If I may say, you seem to be overreacting to broad-evangelicalism's downplay of the sacraments, especially if you think giving "primacy of place to preaching" is having a lower-than-Calvin view of the sacraments. Surely you realize that Calvin gave primacy of place to preaching? If not, his treatment of sacraments in general in Institutes 4.14 provides useful remedy to this thought. For example, Calvin there speaks, "This, which is treasured up in Christ alone, we know to be communicated, not less by the preaching of the Gospel than by the seal of a sacrament, and _may be completely enjoyed without this seal._" For he had spent the first 13 sections of the chapter asserting that "we perceive that there never is a sacrament without an antecedent promise, the sacrament being added as a kind of *appendix*, with the view of confirming and sealing the promise, and giving a better attestation, or rather, in a manner, confirming it." Calvin understands the word can stand without its seal, but a seal cannot stand without the word.


----------



## CharlieJ (Oct 18, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> I think it also important to recognize that in Calvin's day, when the medieval church had celebrated communion as little as twice a year, in some parishes (and even then the parishioners would only partake of the bread), the switch to weekly communion was truly radical.



Not sure I follow here. Are you saying that the mass was only celebrated a few times per year, or that communion is something other than the mass?


----------



## Philip (Oct 18, 2011)

CharlieJ said:


> Are you saying that the mass was only celebrated a few times per year



Yes. This was one of the reforms at Trent, if I'm not mistaken.



Prufrock said:


> If I may say, you seem to be overreacting to broad-evangelicalism's downplay of the sacraments, especially if you think giving "primacy of place to preaching" is having a lower-than-Calvin view of the sacraments. Surely you realize that Calvin gave primacy of place to preaching?



I would say that the ideal is to give primacy to both. I don't quite agree with Calvin that the sacraments are an appendix except insofar as I recognize that they are not necessary for salvation as such, whereas the preaching of the word is. However, in terms of corporate worship and ecclesiology, we have to make them both central to our life together.


----------



## sdesocio (Oct 18, 2011)

Regarding the place of the Westminster Divines' view, I found a very helpful little article over at Reformed.org

"A certain imprecision entered into Puritan sacramental discourses. The presence of Christ was interpreted in a thoroughly subjectivistic manner. "It will not do to categorize these ministers as either Calvinists or Zwinglians: in the doctrine of the presence, the issues were too blurred." [25] Some ministers, however, retained Calvin's understanding of the spiritual presence. Richard Vines and John Owen even went beyond Calvin in stressing the uniqueness of the sacramental presence.[26] In codifying the Lord's Supper, the Westminster Assembly approximated Calvin's doctrine. However, the work of the Spirit in the sacrament is not mentioned, and instrumental language, as in the Belgic Confession, is not employed (e.g. faith is the hand and mouth of the soul etc.)."


----------



## MW (Oct 18, 2011)

Some of the nonsense being put forth in this thread is a manifest token that the Lord's supper is certainly being neglected.


----------



## Prufrock (Oct 18, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> I would say that the ideal is to give primacy to both. I don't quite agree with Calvin that the sacraments are an appendix except insofar as I recognize that they are not necessary for salvation as such, whereas the preaching of the word is. However, in terms of corporate worship and ecclesiology, we have to make them both central to our life together.



Phillip, you began this thread by saying the Reformed church today errs because, unlike Calvin, the sacrament does not share "primacy of place" with the word; now you are saying Calvin erred, because he did not allow the sacrament to share "primacy of place" with word. There is clearly a disconnect here. But we can table that for the moment.

So you want to maintain a "higher" view of the sacrament than Calvin: Ok, we'll just accept that for now. That being the case, can you please explain whether or not the word has priority over the sacraments? And, if not, can you explain how, precisely, that works without becoming sacerdotal?


----------



## Phil D. (Oct 18, 2011)

sdesocio said:


> In codifying the Lord's Supper, the Westminster Assembly approximated Calvin's doctrine. However, the work of the Spirit in the sacrament is not mentioned



"The grace which is exhibited in or by the *sacraments* [plural], rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, *but upon the work of the Spirit*, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers." WCF 27.3

WLC Q. 161. How do the *Sacraments* [plural] become effectual means of salvation? A. The Sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered; but *only by the working of the Holy Ghost*, and the blessing of Christ by whom they are instituted.


----------



## Philip (Oct 19, 2011)

Prufrock said:


> Phillip, you began this thread by saying the Reformed church today errs because, unlike Calvin, the sacrament does not share "primacy of place" with the word; now you are saying Calvin erred, because he did not allow the sacrament to share "primacy of place" with word. There is clearly a disconnect here. But we can table that for the moment.



I think what I'm trying to say is that Calvin's sacramentology should have led him to emphasize it in practice more than he in fact did.



Prufrock said:


> That being the case, can you please explain whether or not the word has priority over the sacraments? And, if not, can you explain how, precisely, that works without becoming sacerdotal?



Salvation-wise, absolutely word has priority over sacrament: sacrament cannot save, but the word preached occasions God's calling of individuals to Himself. In the life of the church, though, both should have equal priority.


----------



## Prufrock (Oct 19, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> I think what I'm trying to say is that Calvin's sacramentology should have led him to emphasize it in practice more than he in fact did.


Of course, an alternative is simply that you think Calvin had a "higher" view of the sacraments than he actually did.



P. F. Pugh said:


> In the life of the church, though, both should have equal priority.


How would you demonstrate this?


----------

