# How regularly should we receive the supper?



## satz (Jan 24, 2005)

I scanned though the topic titles in this forum but could not find a similar one...pls forgive me if i missed it.

Is there any biblical basis to determine how regularly we should receive the Lord's Supper? Should it be every week or does the church have any discretion in the matter?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 24, 2005)

My  Weekly; every Lords day.

[Edited on 1-25-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 24, 2005)

What is your interpretation of that b?


----------



## satz (Jan 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> My  Weekly; every Lords day.
> 
> [Edited on 1-25-2005 by Scott Bushey]



scott, you say this is your 

are there any biblical verses to guide us?

What would you say to a church that had the supper once a month? or even less frequently?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 24, 2005)

Act 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

mark,
I believe it should be all our goals to partake as often as we get together for worship.

[Edited on 1-25-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 24, 2005)

1Co 11:25 In the same way the cup also, after supping, saying, This cup is the New Covenant in My blood; as often as you drink, do this in remembrance of Me.
1Co 11:26 For as often as you may eat this bread, and drink this cup, you solemnly proclaim the death of the Lord, until He shall come. 

Essentially what it's saying is that 'as often as we partake, you make the proclamation who Christ is, and what He accomplished for us.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 24, 2005)

My church has it ever week. It was weird at first until my pastor spoke to me about it. He escentially said the same things Scott has said here.


----------



## satz (Jan 24, 2005)

ok, what scott said seems to make sense.

So how big a deal is it if churches have it less often?


----------



## daveb (Jan 24, 2005)

I also believe that we should partake of the Lord's Supper on a weekly basis. 

Adam, yours is the first church I've heard of that does this....I'm jealous! 

Does anyone know reasons why churches do not administer it each week?


----------



## satz (Jan 24, 2005)

Administrative hassles?

that's the most obvious i could think...


----------



## crhoades (Jan 24, 2005)

We have it weekly as well. What I can't figure out is why that as Presbyterians who view it as ameans of grace and not as a mere memorial we don't clamour for it all the more. 

i'll see Scott's  and raise him


----------



## ARStager (Jan 24, 2005)

One of the classic stupid arguments has been "it'll lose its 'specialness'". Most folks buy it. How stuipid is that!? 

Every week, baby. Or more. Whenever we get together for public worship.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by daveb_
> I also believe that we should partake of the Lord's Supper on a weekly basis.
> 
> Adam, yours is the first church I've heard of that does this....I'm jealous!
> ...



It leads to a lack of examination by the participants, and it leads to a wrong view of the relationship between the Word and Sacrament. Those who most strongly advocate weekly communion fail to acknowledge the complete dependence of the Sacrament on the Word. We can do without the sacrament for a time, we cannot do without the Word.

Historic Presbyterian practice was quarterly (or yearly).


----------



## ARStager (Jan 24, 2005)

Why don't we read the law, confess our sins, be absolved, and then partake, having examined ourselves (and found ourselves guilty)?


----------



## ARStager (Jan 24, 2005)

Calvin: "At least weekly" 

source: Mathison, _Given For You: Rediscovering Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper_


----------



## ARStager (Jan 24, 2005)

So Fred, you disagree with JVD on this point?


----------



## satz (Jan 24, 2005)

> Historic Presbyterian practice was quarterly (or yearly)



Fred..are you saying as in one a year...i am only now beginning to examine the issue in detail, but that does strike me as rather radical.

Do you support this stance?



> It leads to a lack of examination by the participants,



well, i don't want to make a light of this issue, but has anyone wondered that if many of today's modern churches had the supper every week, it might lead to more errm...judgment on their members?


----------



## Tirian (Jan 24, 2005)

I understand that the session (oversight) traditionally takes the view that they have a responsibility to their congregations such that the members do not bring judgment upon themselves by not examining themselves properly. With communion once a quarter, the Session has the opportunity to observe and instruct the congregation & assist them therefore with their examination. 

I believe that there is a case for conducting it weekly however. Surely the minister can, through use of the Word, hedge the supper from the pulpit before it is administered but leave it to the individuals to judge themselves.

Matthew


----------



## daveb (Jan 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by daveb_
> ...



Thanks Fred, this is helpful. I can see how the frequency of the Supper could lead to this.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ARStager_
> So Fred, you disagree with JVD on this point?



Yes I do. One reason why we observed the supper _monthly_.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ARStager_
> Calvin: "At least weekly"
> 
> source: Mathison, _Given For You: Rediscovering Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper_



Yes. Geneva had the supper monthly. And Knox at the same time, administered it quarterly.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Matthew Glover_
> 
> I believe that there is a case for conducting it weekly however. Surely the minister can, through use of the Word, hedge the supper from the pulpit before it is administered but *leave it to the individuals to judge themselves*.



Matthew this last part is unbiblical. Even Calvin would have strongly disagreed.


----------



## lionovjudah (Jan 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Matthew Glover_
> ...




It should be weekly.... Why? That is what is prescribed in Scripture and the primitive Church.

One reason it "loses" its meaning is because it is approached with carelessness or possesses magical saving power. 


The main reason is because we partake of the Lords Appetizer. It was a community supper. The body of believers gathered together for a meal, not a wafer or cubed piece of bread and a portion controlled cup. 

Fred, one must becareful to speak of this passage in Paul regarding bringing judgment. For noone is worthy to partake. It is not or worthyness that allows us to the table, it is our helplessness. 

Another false obstacle is using the excuse people that do not understand it should not be allowed to partake. If you were to give a written test in any congregation, how many would pass? So I reject the notion of worthiness or understanding being a prerequisite to partake. That is looking to self and not Christ. 

The supper should not be hawked like hot dogs at a ball game, it should be celebrated weekely within the gathered believing body, and with the power of the Spirit it will strengthen us through faith.


Joe


----------



## satz (Jan 24, 2005)

Joe,

just curious,

how then do you interpret the scripture about examining yourselves, partaking unworthily etc etc

i assume from your above post you don't agree with the conventional interpretation.


----------



## Tirian (Jan 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Matthew Glover_
> ...



Fred,

Just clarifying - obviously the church leaders have a responsibility to dicipline the members where required. This may include exclusion from the Lord's supper. I'm talking about where a member is not under dicipline, haven't they a responsibility in this regard?

"1 Cor 11:27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world."

Therefore, does it necessarily require that we only sup infrequently such that adequate examination can be peformed by the oversight? I'm coming from the point of view that our church constitution requires affirmation of 3 confessional statements prior to inclusion in the Lord's supper. It's those who have communicant or full membership that I have in mind - cannot they be held accountable to perform their own examination, with the Lord's supper being adequately "hedged" by the Word during it's administration.

For ther record, I am used to receiving it once a quarter - but I am just feeling my way on this.

Matthew


----------



## lionovjudah (Jan 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by satz_
> Joe,
> 
> just curious,
> ...




WHat is the conventional interpretation? We must begin our answer in chapter 10 where the admonition of Paul to the churhc in Corinth begins. 

I will paste what Matthew Henry says.

But fearful believers should not be discouraged from attending at this holy ordinance by the sound of these words, as if they bound upon themselves the sentence of damnation by coming to the table of the Lord unprepared. Thus sin, as well as all others, leaves room for forgiveness upon repentance; and the Holy Spirit never indited this passage of scripture to deter serious Christians from their duty, though the devil has often made this advantage of it, and robbed good Christians of their choicest comforts. The Corinthians came to the Lord's table as to a common feast, not discerning the Lord's body--not making a difference or distinction between that and common food, but setting both on a level: nay, they used much more indecency at this sacred feast than they would have done at a civil one. This was very sinful in them, and very displeasing to God, and brought down his judgments on them:

He closes all with a caution against the irregularities of which they were guilty (v. 33, 34), charging them to avoid all indecency at the Lord's table. They were to eat for hunger and pleasure only at home, and not to change the holy supper to a common feast; and much less eat up the provisions before those who could bring none did partake of them, lest they should come together for condemnation. Note, Our holy duties, through our own abuse, may prove matter of condemnation. Christians may keep Sabbaths, hear sermons, attend at sacraments, and only aggravate guilt, and bring on a heavier doom. A sad but serious truth! O! let all look to it that they do not come together at any time to God's worship, and all the while provoke him, and bring down vengeance on themselves. Holy things are to be used in a holy manner, or else they are profaned. What else was amiss in this matter, he tells them, he would rectify when he came to them.

http://www.ccel.org/h/henry/mhc2/MHC46010.HTM


The above is an excellent exegeis of the Scripture.

He does mention a lack of understanding should keep people away, but I disagree with that. I do nto know what he means by a lack of understanding.


One thign is for certain, a self examination can be done weekly and with care. We must also be assured that if we confess our sin, He is faithful to forgive us as spoken by the Apostle John. Too many use the self examination scripture to fence the table, that was not the intention, for we must read chapter 10 to understand Pauls thoughts in chapter 11


Joe


----------



## Ianterrell (Jan 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> My  Weekly; every Lords day.
> 
> [Edited on 1-25-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 25, 2005)

Joe, do you then support paedocommunion?

Fred, I second Matthew's last question above.


----------



## Ianterrell (Jan 25, 2005)

Matthew and Chris,

This is the case with the communicant membership, but if you have visitors every week or every so often the process of interviewing them to give them access is tedius and agonizing.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> Matthew and Chris,
> 
> This is the case with the communicant membership, but if you have visitors every week or every so often the process of interviewing them to give them access is tedius and agonizing.



Exactly.

One of the things that this thread is pointing out is that advocates of weekly communion inevitably take a "we're losing something if we don't" That is a wrong view of the sacrament. The sacrament depends on the Word, not vice versa. The Word is what is critical in our lives. The sacraments are a bolster to the Word.

We have been down the road before of talking abnout "breaking bread" as the Lord's Supper. This is an exegetical assumption, not fact. This is even more the case when we consider that believers lived together and ate together; further we really have no idea what the agape feasts were. The only thing we know is that they almost immediately degenerated into a problem (cf. 1 Cor.)


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 25, 2005)

I would prefer weekly as well. But that's only now that I've come to understand the sacrament. It could become just a ritual after a while if the elders were not diligent to remind people what it means and how to rightly partake. I'm sure it was this neglect on the part of the leadership which led to the superstitious Mass over time in Rome.


----------



## Ianterrell (Jan 25, 2005)

Fred,

But as Luther said, we should not try to remedy abuses by outlawing the object. But I'm jumping the gun, I'm operating obviously on the grounds that the agape feasts, as you call them, are the Supper. And I think that the breaking of bread is referring to the Supper as well. 

Personally I need to reconsider this issue more as I've noted for some time now that my views on frequency do not comport with my views on the hedge.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> Fred,
> 
> But as Luther said, we should not try to remedy abuses by outlawing the object. But I'm jumping the gun, I'm operating obviously on the grounds that the agape feasts, as you call them, are the Supper. And I think that the breaking of bread is referring to the Supper as well.
> ...



I agree. But do we really think that our forebearers did not understand the sacrament? Why do you think that weekly communion was almost completely unknown outside of Papist and High Anglican circles for about 300-400 years after the Reformation?


----------



## gwine (Jan 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> "As oft as ye do this..." ?



If I say to my son, "As oft as you ride your motorcycle, wear your helmet", I would not be specifying how often. Can you explain how the words of Christ would be seen differently?

Maybe He meant once every Passover season (yes - I am being serious.)


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> Matthew and Chris,
> 
> This is the case with the communicant membership, but if you have visitors every week or every so often the process of interviewing them to give them access is tedius and agonizing.



OK, I understand and agree with that - but then just how should the "examining" of partakers be done? I _really_ need to read a full systematic theology text to brush up on how a lot of these things interrelate (e.g. Church authority, grace, covenant status, etc.). I'll probably begin Berkhof's after I finish my current Bahnsen book. In the meantime, simply out of ignorance from growing up in an A/G church, and because my present church has not yet administered the Supper since I've been there, what does the examining process usually consist of, or what do you think it should? Fred? Ian?


----------



## Ianterrell (Jan 25, 2005)

I think examining should always be done "good cop/bad cop style" with a tall glass of water...just kiddin.

Actually Chris that's what I'm working out, I'm not sure what can be determined from good and necessary inference as the most biblical way to hedge the table at this point. Certainly there has been some consistency on this head among the Reformed historically, but outside of this tradition I would like to consider the arguements.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by daveb_
> ...



Biblically, it was practiced on the Lords day-no? If it wasn't an issue for the apostles, why should it be for us?

Also, this raises some other questions in my mind. For instance:

Is our evaluation of self ever less than compromised or sinful? Our worthiness does not vasilate between one day being worthy and another not worthy; Jesus is our worthiness.

Have all our sins been forgiven and paid for, and if so, would improper evaluation hinder us in some way?1 John 5:9 calls us to confess our sins; this doesn't mean that if we forget one, it is not forgiven us, does it? I can't see how this could be. To me, this means that these people were approaching the table with unreprentant hearts. The Lord looks at the heart. The sin of this person is protected; embraced. The punishment is, "Some sleep". This is an individual evaluation. I don't believe the supper should be put off because there is a caution that a member may not have the right heart. In fact, I believe it is good; Here's why:

1Co 11:27 So that whoever should eat this bread, or drink the cup of the Lord, unworthily, that one will be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 
1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and let him drink of the cup; 
1Co 11:29 for he eating and drinking unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 
1Co 11:30 For this reason many among you are weak and feeble, and many sleep. 
1Co 11:31 For if we discerned ourselves, we would not be judged. 
1Co 11:32 But being judged, we are *chastened* by the Lord, that we not be condemned with the world. 


And this:

Heb 12:5 And you have forgotten the exhortation which He speaks with you, as with sons, "My sons, do not despise the *chastening* of the Lord, nor faint while being corrected by Him. 
Heb 12:6 For whom the Lord loves, He disciplines, and whips every son whom He receives." Prov. 3:11, 12 
Heb 12:7 If you endure discipline, God is dealing with you as with sons; for who is the son whom a father does not discipline? 
Heb 12:8 But if you are without discipline, of which all have become sharers, then you are bastards, and not sons. 

We are exhorted to NOT 'despise' the chastening of the Lord as it proves sonship.

[Edited on 1-25-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## lionovjudah (Jan 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Joe, do you then support paedocommunion?
> 
> Fred, I second Matthew's last question above.




Good question Scott: I have not studied it that much so I cannot offer a conclusion. 

My initial thoughts would be to answer yes. Only based on a premature study of the interaction of Christ with His covenant people.

Again, if understanding is the premise against it, then how many adults would we not allow to partake?

IT definately should nto be profaned and taken by those in unrepentant sin, this is a pearl of great price and should not be cast before the swine. But since I know my sinfullness, I have to leave that up to the individual and God. 

My initial observation is whether we feel the faith of a child is real faith. But then how many professing adults do we believe then fall away.

Joe


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> ...



I believe this is why I embrace 'close' communion.........


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by satz_
> I scanned though the topic titles in this forum but could not find a similar one...pls forgive me if i missed it.
> 
> Is there any biblical basis to determine how regularly we should receive the Lord's Supper? Should it be every week or does the church have any discretion in the matter?



This issue has been discussed a little bit previously but not as much as I would have supposed: http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=4462

Here is what the Westminster Directory for Publick Worship says: 



> THE communion, or supper of the Lord, is frequently to be celebrated; but how often, may be considered and determined by the ministers, and other church-governors of each congregation, as they shall find most convenient for the comfort and edification of the people committed to their charge. And, when it shall be administered, we judge it convenient to be done after the morning sermon.
> 
> The ignorant and the scandalous are not fit to receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.
> 
> Where this sacrament cannot with convenience be frequently administered, it is requisite that publick warning be given the sabbath-day before the administration thereof: and that either then, or on some day of that week, something concerning that ordinance, and the due preparation thereunto, and participation thereof, be taught; that, by the diligent use of all means sanctified of God to that end, both in publick and private, all may come better prepared to that heavenly feast.



I think there is discretion in the matter of "frequency" of communion. I also think that too frequent or too infrequent communion can be an occasion for or lead to abuse. My own thought is that monthly is ideal. 'Frequent' to the Scots sometimes meant every six or twelve months, but as the Lord's Supper is a means of grace, I think we ought to have it more often than that ideally. Yet, I agree with Fred that the sacrament is dependent upon the Word and not the other way around.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 25, 2005)

> Yet, I agree with Fred that the sacrament is dependent upon the Word and not the other way around.



Andrew,
Can you expound upon this?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Have all our sins been forgiven and paid for, and if so, would improper evaluation hinder us in some way?



Well, if it wouldn't, then one has to wonder why the command for examination is there at all.



> _Originally posted by lionovjudah_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



My name's Chris, by the way.  As far as understanding being required to partake, look at 2 Chron. 30:18-20 and Numbers 9:6 and consider their connection to the Lord's Supper. The Chronicles passage is especially relevant, since it clearly likens the "cleasing of themselves" (and thus the "examining" in the Supper) to the one who "prepares his heart to seek God." And one cannot do the latter withot understanding.


----------



## ARStager (Jan 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> Also, this raises some other questions in my mind. For instance:
> 
> ...



I can heartily agree with Scott on this point. 

However, the angle I take with the formality of the Supper intersects with my gripes about how we do absolution...errr..."assurance of pardon". 

I am so thankful for ministers and elders who are concerned with being faithful to their call to not "lead one of these little ones astray." But at the same time, if we continue to isolate individuals and pester them about "if you _really, really, really_mean it...." and then then tell them "here's a scripture that says that God forgives you, if indeed you're one of the elect, and if indeed you _really, really, verily_ mean it." --- if we do this, we're leading the little ones astray by leading them back into themselves over and over again. Faith is extraspective and looks to Christ alone. Shall we not put Christ before them? Shall we not shew forth his death til he come?

I will repeat my comments about absolution. Did not the entire congergation confess their sins with their mouths? Did not they confess Jesus Christ as Lord to the glory of God the Father in the creed? Did not they hear the word and respond with an "Amen!"? Did they not "AMEN" after 4 or 5 (or 11) hymns during the course of the service? All of these words - these utterances with our mouths - do we have the right to be suspicious and paranoid that folks don't really, really mean it? The congergants have gathered, heard from the law, examined themselves, and repented ---- should they then not be absolved of their sin?

And then the same follows for the supper. If you've read from the law, explaining the sinfulness of all our sins, then the troubled of conscience need to both _hear_ a good word from the Lord Jesus Christ --- a mid-service benediction, if you will, and to _taste and see_ that God is for them and not against them. The minister is the servant of the Word and must open the keys of the kingdom to all those who have repented, not just close it to the unrepentant. And then we have a sign and seal of the covenant of grace to ratify that which was proclaimed in the Word. 

If we're as serious about examining ourselves as we all seem to be, then why don't we read from the law, confess our sins, be absolved, and then recieve the sign and seal? You've covered all your bases and managed to execute the offices of Christ in the process, and according to his appointed means.

[Edited on 1-25-2005 by ARStager]

[Edited on 1-25-2005 by ARStager]

[Edited on 1-25-2005 by ARStager]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 25, 2005)

> Well, if it wouldn't, then one has to wonder why the command for examination is there at all.



Chris,
The logic is there. However, when are you more worthy? My own examinations wain and wax from day to day. Surely you agree.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > Yet, I agree with Fred that the sacrament is dependent upon the Word and not the other way around.
> ...



I don't think weekly communion is sinful _per se_; my problem with it is that some advocates make it seem as if the sacrament is so tied to the Word that one can't have the Word preached without the sacrament. In other words, if the sacrament must be administered every week then that suggests that it is sinful to preach the Word without administering the sacrament. I believe the Word _must_ be preached wherever God's people are gathered together for corporate worship; I don't believe the sacrament _must of necessity_ be administered whenever God's people are gathered together.

'Frequent' observance is the guidance of the Westminster DPW and I concur. To me, 'frequent' does not mean every Lord's Day. I believe there is discretion, as the DPW says. If there is no discretion, then it weekly observance is mandatory, but I don't see Biblical warrant to go that far.

[Edited on 25-1-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## ARStager (Jan 25, 2005)

To me the sacrament is a pastoral concern. I want to feed on the body and blood of Christ; to taste and see that the Lord is good - and I would love to have this tasting and seeing as a ratification of that which I have just HEARD. 

The issue for me is not whether we're given a biblical mandate to do it every week or not, but as our confession allows discretion in the operation of the term "frequently", I see no good reason why we should NOT administer it at least weekly, if not every time we gather for the hearing of the word. 


We KNOW, of course, that the sacrament is inoperative apart from the word, and that the word does its work independently of the sacrament. But the sacrament is there for our good---to sign and seal and exhibit that which is offered to us in the word.

Weekly (or more) observance is both permissible AND beneficial. Why not feed as often as is lawful?

[Edited on 1-25-2005 by ARStager]


----------



## lionovjudah (Jan 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...




God prepares our hearts Chris, so I do nto see the connection at all.. In fact the ritualistic cleansing in the OT still did nto purify their hearts. God commanded them to do it. Christ cleanses us Chris, I cannot wash my filth off of my heart. 

Again, how many people ina congregation understand the meaning of the Supper? SO where is the litmus teast? Anyway, I do not see how those 2 scriptures have anything to do with determining ones participation according to their understanding..

Joe


----------



## lionovjudah (Jan 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ARStager_
> To me the sacrament is a pastoral concern. I want to feed on the body and blood of Christ; to taste and see that the Lord is good - and I would love to have this tasting and seeing as a ratification of that which I have just HEARD.
> 
> The issue for me is not whether we're given a biblical mandate to do it every week or not, but as our confession allows discretion in the operation of the term "frequently", I see no good reason why we should NOT administer it at least weekly, if not every time we gather for the hearing of the word.
> ...




AR; I agree with everythign you wrote, but do not understand what the last sentence refers to? Permissible and declared lawful why whom? I hope you are not referring to a confession, writing of a man, when it is dictated in the Holy Writ.

Joe


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > Well, if it wouldn't, then one has to wonder why the command for examination is there at all.
> ...



Of course we cannot be sure of having a "perfect" examination any time in this life, because of our retained fallen nature. But that does not change the fact that God has still commanded earnest examination, and thus that it is our responsibility and the Church's to carry out that command as diligently as we can. Furthermore, your initial question was, "Would improper evaluation hinder us in some way?" Apparently so, since it caused much judgment and sickness at the church in Corinth, and even death.



> _Originally posted by lionovjudah_
> God prepares our hearts Chris, so I do nto see the connection at all.. In fact the ritualistic cleansing in the OT still did nto purify their hearts. God commanded them to do it. Christ cleanses us Chris, I cannot wash my filth off of my heart.
> 
> Again, how many people ina congregation understand the meaning of the Supper? SO where is the litmus teast? Anyway, I do not see how those 2 scriptures have anything to do with determining ones participation according to their understanding..



2 Chronicles 30:18-20 (ESV) reads,



> For a majority of the people, many of them from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet they ate the Passover otherwise than as prescribed. For Hezekiah had prayed for them, saying, "May the good Lord pardon everyone who sets his heart to seek God, the Lord, the God of his fathers, even though not according to the sanctuary's rules of cleanness." And the Lord heard Hezekiah and healed the people.



The Passover is the Old Testament equivalent of the Lord's Supper, and the need for "healing" spoken of in the above passage corresponds with Paul's words concerning unworthy partaking of the Supper:



> For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. (1 Cor. 11:29-30)



Most importantly, you are confusing our accounted righteousness in Christ with the examination commanded before this sacrament in both testaments. You say, "God prepares our hearts," yet the passage dealing with the Passover speaks of the one "who sets his heart to seek God," which corresponds with the man who "examines himself" in the Lord's Supper passage, and in both passages it is an active action commanded on the part of the partaker. The Old Testament passage sheds light on the New, showing that the New cannot simply be warning against excessive abuses in the Supper, or saying that only believers should partake - on the contrary, the language is much more specific, commanding an examination of the heart to seek God. Having the accounted righteousness of Christ does not automatically make our hearts perpetually in the right state to seek Him as such, otherwise there would have been no purpose for the admonitions given in both passages.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 25, 2005)

Chris,
Here is the passage:

1Co 11:26 For as often as you may eat this bread, and drink this cup, you solemnly proclaim the death of the Lord, until He shall come. 
1Co 11:27 So that whoever should eat this bread, or drink the cup of the Lord, unworthily, that one will be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 
1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and let him drink of the cup; 
1Co 11:29 for he eating and drinking unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. 
1Co 11:30 For this reason many among you are weak and feeble, and many sleep. 
1Co 11:31 For if we discerned ourselves, we would not be judged. 
1Co 11:32 But being judged, we are corrected by the Lord, that we not be condemned with the world. 

Heb 10:29 how much worse punishment do you think will be thought worthy to receive, the one trampling the Son of God, and having counted common the blood of the covenant in which he was sanctified, and having insulted the Spirit of Grace? 
Heb 10:30 For we know Him who has said, "Vengeance belongs to Me; I will repay," says the Lord. And again, "The Lord will judge His people." Deut. 32:35, 36 
Heb 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. 

Are we ever worthy outside of Christ? No! If we are at all worthy, it is Christs worthiness. Does that worthiness depend upon us? No! Does evaluation alter our worthiness? No! It couldn't. If it did, we would be adding to the work of Christ. Who of us would not discern the body of the Lord? An unregenerate whom is in the visible church. As I have asked before, according to 1 John 1:9, we are called to confess our sins. If we forget one, is it not forgiven us? It is forgiven us. The examination the believer does is relative to our fallen nature; imperfect. Hence, taking the supper weekly will not change the relativeness in regards to the quality of or evaluation. 

My opinion, those whom sleep are members of the visible church who have trampled on the blood of Christ.............


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 25, 2005)

But you are reading your presuppositions into the text beforehand - for you are automatically assuming that the "worthiness" of which Paul speaks is referring to our ultimate judicial worthiness before God in Christ, whereas the 2 Chronicles parallel suggests a different meaning, one that is more subjective.

And our ultimate judicial cleanliness before God because of Christ does _not_ mean that our hearts are always prepared to seek Him. And again, of course we cannot do so perfectly, but the command to strive to do so is there nonetheless.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> But you are reading your presuppositions into the text beforehand - for you are automatically assuming that the "worthiness" of which Paul speaks is referring to our ultimate judicial worthiness before God in Christ, whereas the 2 Chronicles parallel suggests a different meaning, one that is more subjective.
> 
> And our ultimate judicial cleanliness before God because of Christ does _not_ mean that our hearts are always prepared to seek Him. And again, of course we cannot do so perfectly, but the command to strive to do so is there nonetheless.



I will grant you your premise, even though it may be your presupps and not mine whom defines the way YOU are seeing this passage :bigsmile:

Bottom line Chris, the relevance is this, our worthiness wanes and waxes according to many things.Coming to the table weekly would not worsen the situation. In fact, feeding upon Christ should draw us closer to Him. No one is saying that believers are not to examine themselves; I agree, we are called to it. However, those whom sleep are doing far more damage as they are the only one's whom are unable to _discern_ the Lords body in this process.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 25, 2005)

Here's the 2nd Chr passage:

For a majority of the people, many of them from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet they ate the Passover otherwise than as prescribed. For Hezekiah had prayed for them, saying, "May the good Lord pardon everyone who sets his heart to seek God, the Lord, the God of his fathers, even though not according to the sanctuary's rules of cleanness." And the Lord heard Hezekiah and healed the people.


They had not *cleansed* themselves.........I don't see how I've misapplied this????


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Bottom line Chris, the relevance is this, our worthiness wanes and waxes according to many things.Coming to the table weekly would not worsen the situation. In fact, feeding upon Christ should draw us closer to Him. No one is saying that believers are not to examine themselves; I agree, we are called to it.



I don't really have an opinion at this point with regard to whether or not weekly is best. For while I rejoice in the sacrament as a true means of grace to "bolster the Word" as Fred put it, and hence see the side of weekly advocates, I definitely think there is far too much carelessness today regarding the examination that is commanded, and hence see the side of the less-than-weekly advocates as well, taking a cautionary, protective side simply in light of how much carelessness unfortunately exists in the Church today regarding examination.



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> However, those whom sleep are doing far more damage as they are the only one's whom are unable to _discern_ the Lords body in this process.



Doesn't the phrase "fallen asleep" used in the Bible generally mean physically dead? Regardless, I agree with you that those who are unregenerate in the congregation and have trampled the body of Christ are indeed the only ones _unable_ to discern it.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Here's the 2nd Chr passage:
> 
> For a majority of the people, many of them from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, had not cleansed themselves, yet they ate the Passover otherwise than as prescribed. For Hezekiah had prayed for them, saying, "May the good Lord pardon everyone who sets his heart to seek God, the Lord, the God of his fathers, even though not according to the sanctuary's rules of cleanness." And the Lord heard Hezekiah and healed the people.
> ...



The language "sets his heart to seek God" is much more subjective and specific in nature than a reference to a judicial cleanliness would likely be, which is why I see that phrase as shedding some light on the meaning of the passage as a whole that would not have been clear had that phrase not been included.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 25, 2005)

Chris,
What were _ the rules_? I disagree that the words used in this passage are any less subjective. 

1Co 11:26 For as often as *you* may eat this bread, and drink this cup, *you* solemnly proclaim the death of the Lord, until He shall come. 
1Co 11:27 So that *whoever* should eat this bread, or drink the cup of the Lord, unworthily, *that one* will be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 
1Co 11:28 But let *a man* examine *himself*, and so let *him* eat of the bread, and let *him* drink of the cup; 
1Co 11:29 for *he* eating and drinking unworthily eats and drinks judgment to *himself*, not discerning the body of the Lord

As far as them being unclean:

Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and goats, and ashes of a heifer sprinkling those having been defiled, sanctifies to the purity of the flesh, 
Heb 9:14 by how much more the blood of Christ (who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God), will purify your conscience from dead works, to serve the living God! 

Heb 10:4 for it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 

Heb 10:10 by which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

How much more efficacious is the actual blood of Christ?

[Edited on 1-25-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 25, 2005)

I referred to Kittle and Zodhiates: Aparently, the term refers more to the attitude (not moral standing). Whatever the case, I still don't agree that it is our responsibility in delaying the supper as only God knows the heart (attitude); for all we know, the person whom we are delaying the supper to, needs it most; Whether it be a chastening or the vigor that comes with partaking, and you don't see the premise in scripture. You do see however that they are partaking when they get together...........




[Edited on 1-25-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Chris,
> What were _ the rules_? I disagree that the words used in this passage are any less subjective.
> 
> ...



Indeed - and that's the point I've been trying to make, that _both_ passages agree, and that the instructions in both are in fact of a more subjective nature than our already-secured righteousness.



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> As far as them being unclean:
> 
> Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and goats, and ashes of a heifer sprinkling those having been defiled, sanctifies to the purity of the flesh,
> ...



Indeed, His blood purifies our conscience _to serve_ the living God - so while it has already served on our full behalf judicially, it likewise sets us apart to make that service more and more of a reality in our lived-out lives as time goes on. And the Hebrews verses explain why, as you said before, the unregenerate are _unable_ to discern the body of Christ, while we _are_ able to discern it, because of our purification through the blood. And that is the very reason we should strive to do so as commanded before the Supper.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Jan 25, 2005)

My ... nowhere do we have a command to observe the sacrament with a specific frequency. There is no command to do it everytime you come together, or every week, or every month, or whatever. Of course, it's possible that we have some examples of the early church in Acts observing the supper each time they came together, but all that means is that we are permitted to do this if we choose.

But having said that, I think the theology of the sacrament itself should lead us to observe the supper with a certain degree of frequency. I, personally, would like to observe it weekly because I find great joy in it. But depending on how your church observes the sacrament, weekly observance may be a bit too tedious. At St Paul's, we all go forward to receive the sacrament row by row, which takes up considerable amounts of time sometimes. The result is that we observe it monthly. 

I agree with those who have said that the Word is primary and the sacrament is secondary. But I think I would still be concerned by less frequent observance than monthly. Is there not a reason to observe the supper _other than_ the fact that Jesus told us to do it?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I referred to Kittle and Zodhiates: Aparently, the term refers more to the attitude (not moral standing). Whatever the case, I still don't agree that it is our responsibility in delaying the supper as only God knows the heart (attitude); for all we know, the person whom we are delaying the supper to, needs it most; Whether it be a chastening or the vigor that comes with partaking, and you don't see the premise in scripture. You do see however that they are partaking when they get together...........
> 
> 
> ...



Again, I don't necessarily think it is the Church's responsibility to delay it, either. I'm honestly just not sure on that point.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> My ... nowhere do we have a command to observe the sacrament with a specific frequency. There is no command to do it everytime you come together, or every week, or every month, or whatever. Of course, it's possible that we have some examples of the early church in Acts observing the supper each time they came together, but all that means is that we are permitted to do this if we choose.
> 
> But having said that, I think the theology of the sacrament itself should lead us to observe the supper with a certain degree of frequency. I, personally, would like to observe it weekly because I find great joy in it. But depending on how your church observes the sacrament, weekly observance may be a bit too tedious. At St Paul's, we all go forward to receive the sacrament row by row, which takes up considerable amounts of time sometimes. The result is that we observe it monthly.
> ...



Craig,
yes, there is a reason. 

1Co 11:31 For if we discerned ourselves, we would not be judged. 
1Co 11:32 But being judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we not be condemned with the world. 

Chastening is good.

Heb 12:5 And you have forgotten the exhortation which He speaks with you, as with sons, "My sons, do not despise the chastening of the Lord, nor faint while being corrected by Him. 
Heb 12:6 For whom the Lord loves, He disciplines, and whips every son whom He receives." Prov. 3:11, 12 
Heb 12:7 If you endure discipline, God is dealing with you as with sons; for who is the son whom a father does not discipline? 
Heb 12:8 But if you are without discipline, of which all have become sharers, then you are bastards, and not sons. 
Heb 12:9 Furthermore, indeed we have had fathers of our flesh as correctors, and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits, and we shall live? 
Heb 12:10 For they truly disciplined us for a few days according to the thing seeming good to them; but He for our profit, in order for us to partake of His holiness. 

It proves that we have a Father and we are His sons!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> My ... nowhere do we have a command to observe the sacrament with a specific frequency. There is no command to do it everytime you come together, or every week, or every month, or whatever. Of course, it's possible that we have some examples of the early church in Acts observing the supper each time they came together, but all that means is that we are permitted to do this if we choose.
> 
> But having said that, I think the theology of the sacrament itself should lead us to observe the supper with a certain degree of frequency.
> ...


----------



## lionovjudah (Jan 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> My ... nowhere do we have a command to observe the sacrament with a specific frequency. There is no command to do it everytime you come together, or every week, or every month, or whatever. Of course, it's possible that we have some examples of the early church in Acts observing the supper each time they came together, but all that means is that we are permitted to do this if we choose.
> 
> But having said that, I think the theology of the sacrament itself should lead us to observe the supper with a certain degree of frequency. I, personally, would like to observe it weekly because I find great joy in it. But depending on how your church observes the sacrament, weekly observance may be a bit too tedious. At St Paul's, we all go forward to receive the sacrament row by row, which takes up considerable amounts of time sometimes. The result is that we observe it monthly.
> ...





Did the first readers of this account feel the same way?

I doubt they said, "Well the is no COMMAND, so I guess this means we can observe the supper when we want."

The issue is simple. Weekly observance was prescribed in Scripture and the primitive Church, not for legalistic means, but only to celebrate the supper as a community of believers.



Joe


----------



## luvroftheWord (Jan 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by lionovjudah_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> ...



But where is weekly observance prescribed, Joe? Where has the Bible told us to do it weekly? All we have are case examples of the apostles and the early church observing the supper (and as Fred has mentioned before, it is debatable as to whether or not the "breaking of bread" in Acts was always a reference to the Lord's Supper). But principles are not built off of case examples. As I said, all the examples in Acts prove (if they are indeed references to the sacrament) is that we are permitted to observe it weekly, not that we are required to.

By the way, Andrew, I like when we agree on stuff.


----------



## gwine (Jan 26, 2005)

If principles are not built from case examples, then what determines the Sabbath now?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> By the way, Andrew, I like when we agree on stuff.



Me too, Craig, me too!


----------



## lionovjudah (Jan 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord
> 
> But where is weekly observance prescribed, Joe? Where has the Bible told us to do it weekly? All we have are case examples of the apostles and the early church observing the supper (and as Fred has mentioned before, it is debatable as to whether or not the "breaking of bread" in Acts was always a reference to the Lord's Supper). But principles are not built off of case examples. As I said, all the examples in Acts prove (if they are indeed references to the sacrament) is that we are permitted to observe it weekly, not that we are required to._


_



Why would anyone not want to remember the Lord´s death very often. And only partake of the Lord´s supper monthly, quarterly, annually, or not at all. The excuse is given that they do not want to partake of it more often because it will become too common place and loose its meaning. Or it is too tedious for the people to prepare the portion controlled supper, or we cannot properly examine ourselves. But the very opposite is true. The Lord´s Supper loses its meaning when we choose not to partake and think about it. And people would be forced to examine their hearts weekly. This would be like saying that we should only pray two or three times a year, for if we prayed more often then prayer would lose its meaning. This would be absurd. Does the Lord´s death really mean anything to us? But Jesus requested in Luke 22:19, "Do this in remembrance of Me." Do we really care to regularly remember the death of our Lord?

We also read in Acts 2:42 concerning the church at Jerusalem, "And they continued steadfastly in the apostles´ doctrine and fellowship, in breaking of bread and in prayers." Again we see the first century church was steadfast or regular in the breaking of bread which is their observance of the Lord´s Supper. But later men in denominational groups chose to partake of the Lord´s Supper less frequently. Should we be any less regular than the church in the first century? According to what we have seen in the scriptures, we are to both give and partake of the Lord´s Supper every first day of the week. Could the Bible be any clearer concerning the Lord´s Supper?

Jesus said in 1 Corinthians 11:25, "this do in remembrance of Me." The Lord´s Supper helps us remember what the Lord did for us. And as we partake of it as 1 Corinthians 11:26 says, "you proclaim the Lord´s death till He comes". We are showing the world that we believe that Jesus died for our sins.

Let´s not pervert the what the Lord did for us. But as we partake of the Lord´s Supper every first day of the week in spirit and in truth, let us steadfastly "proclaim the Lord´s death till he comes" again.


This sums up the Biblical truth. There is no further discussion that could settle this issue. The Holy Spirit has revealed this truth CLEAR and those who refuse to partake are left with no excuse. No man, creed or confession can change this, but they have. So far I have not heard one good arguement that carries any weight on this subject. Their is absolutley nothing debatable. For some reason celebrating the Lords death until He comes again has been perverted by mans folly. Look at what has been done to this Sacrament.

The heresey of Transubstantiation
The monstosity of consubstantiation as Calvin called it.
Zwinglis symbolic memorial.
Portion controlled Lords Appetizer
Crackers


Look at what men have done to Christ. Unless someone can serve some meat in this debate, for I am not a vegetarian and that is all that has been served thus far by those who say monthly, quarterly, yearly is ok, I am resting in the Witness of the Holy Spirit that has settled this Historically and clearly. Why some things are still debated is beyond me. Once the Truth is clearly revealed, why do we continue?

Infrequent communion, Calvin claimed, was a superstitious horror, "œa most evident contrivance of the devil," and he considered it among the worst of the many abuses of worship in medieval Catholicism. For Calvin, weekly communion was no less important than other reforms he sought, such as the use of the cup by the laity and worship in the language of the vernacular. So Calvin came to the conclusion that "œthe Lord´s Table should have been spread at least once a week for the assembly of Christians, and the promises declared in it should feed us spiritually."


Grace and Peace


Joe

[Edited on 1-26-2005 by lionovjudah]_


----------



## luvroftheWord (Jan 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> If principles are not built from case examples, then what determines the Sabbath now?



The principle of one day in seven has not been revoked by God anywhere in the New Testament. Thus, it continues to be binding.

If you can build principles off of case examples, then you can prove just about anything from the Bible. I could argue that we are supposed to pluck heads of grain for ourselves to eat on the Sabbath. After all, Jesus and his disciples did it.

[Edited on 26-1-2005 by luvroftheWord]


----------



## luvroftheWord (Jan 26, 2005)

Joe,

I have asked you already and you haven't answered. Where is a principle given? Case examples are not principles. We have a case example of Jesus going up on a mountain to pray and doing so for the whole night (Luke 6:12). Are we required to go up on mountains to pray all night long? I guess if you live in Kansas you're living in sin.


----------



## gwine (Jan 26, 2005)

Craig,

Forgive me for implying elsewise, but I wasn't talking about the Sabbath itself. We are commanded to keep the Sabbath, but are we commanded to do so on the first day of the week or the seventh day? I thought the conclusion that most make is that it is the first day because this is the pattern the disciples had. Am I wrong to come to this conclusion?

Joe,

I guess I see the same thing with your analogy between the Lord's Supper and prayer. We are commanded to pray without ceasing but where are we commanded to keep the Lord's Supper weekly (or daily?) I would appreciate the biblical reference that shows it as a command.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 26, 2005)

Joe, it has been stated repeatedly throughout this thread that there is no textual proof that "breaking of bread" refers to the Supper.

Furthermore, all you have done at this point is rhetorically and hypothetically ask, "How could anyone _not_ want to participate weekly?" and from there made the huge jump that we are biblically bound to do so. But you have shown no concrete exegetical evidence of that whatsoever.

As I have said before in this thread, I don't really have a preference for frequency at this time, and at this point the closest thing to my position would be to say that that decision is a liberty given to the elders of a church who know about their own congregation. So I am not against observing it weekly, but you have asserted much more than you have shown (or I believe can show) from Scripture.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Jan 26, 2005)

Gerry,

I appreciate your question and I'd like to think about it more. But the very, very least that could be said is that because we have examples of the church celebrating it on the first day of the week, that we are _permitted_ to celebrate it on that day. But of course, permission is not the same as obligation. I'll talk to my roommate about it.


----------



## lionovjudah (Jan 26, 2005)

Craig and Chris.

I have not failed to provide proof. What I posted is from Scripture. Whether you would wonder if breaking of bread meant the supper or not is your fight not mine, not the early church, not the fathers, and not Scripture. If you're asking me where it is commanded in plain words, I need not have to. There is no reason not to partake weekly. All I know is the reasons not to partake weekly are all man made of the devil. The rhetorical questions still stand. I have provided enough evidence for this. Besides me, I will state emphatically the Holy Spirit has clearly presented this truth Historically. Argue with Him, not I. 

If you need a "Thou Shalt" to follow the Spirit, you will miss alot of truth. 

What orrotates me is why you would not want to remember Christs death? You all continue to come back with the same stale defense, there is no command!!!!!! 

Do you question giving every week? 

We give every week and we eat every week. This is clear in the Holy Writ. 


Craig you stated somethign that really concerns me.

All we have are case examples of the apostles and the early church observing the supper (and as Fred has mentioned before, it is debatable as to whether or not the "breaking of bread" in Acts was always a reference to the Lord's Supper).

Are you sure you mean this? You are saying thats all we have? You will die for the RP or WCF. Fight to death. But you have the freedom to say thats ALL we have is what is written in Scripture and the early church? And fred said it? Well what does that mean? No offense to Fred. But I will not even respond to that. I do nto even know what you mean when you say case examples are not proof? We are talking about the Holy Writ Craig.. The Apostles. Sola Scriptura, you remember that? I have started to repeat myself and may consider to remove myself from this debate. 

There is no need to debate what has already been revealed clearly by the Holy Spirit. You should ask yourself why was it changed. Find that for me and I will talk. Dont use the lame reasons you have given so far. Please bring some meat to this debate. Do nto say Scripture is not enough. It was done weekly for centuries. Tell me why it changed. And please do not say the WCF decided. Or Tom Dick ,Harry, Fred, Wilma, Barney. Please I am begging you to tell me why it changed.


Joe


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 26, 2005)

Well, fine. Frankly, Joe, I'm tired of you simply saying that Scripture says something, so you have to be right, and ignoring the fact that many, many godly theologians have said the exact opposite. You never give additional Scriptural exegesis, and when you make historical points, you never cite anything, but your say so.

The board doesn't need you simply responding over and over again with "you have to prove it to me" and "I'll repeat my same assertion."

It stops here. Do it again, and I'll be deleting your posts, and processing the revoking of your posting privileges with the Admins. You add nothing to the debate, are contumacious, and it stops now.


----------



## lionovjudah (Jan 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Well, fine. Frankly, Joe, I'm tired of you simply saying that Scripture says something, so you have to be right, and ignoring the fact that many, many godly theologians have said the exact opposite. You never give additional Scriptural exegesis, and when you make historical points, you never cite anything, but your say so.
> 
> The board doesn't need you simply responding over and over again with "you have to prove it to me" and "I'll repeat my same assertion."
> ...



Ok Fred, if you need extra biblical citations I will post them. WHy not ask Matt how he feels about this? You say I add nothing, well with all due respect sir, all I am doing is parroting the Writ. I find nothing else is needed. If this makes you uncomfortable then I do not know what to say. Who are these Godly theologians? I posted the Scriptures, I posted Calvins thoughts. I will add to this post with many more. My wife called me to put away laundry, so I have to go now.

BTW I do not know what contumacious means. And besides, why does there need to be an exegetical thesis from me on something that other admins in here agree with? 

Give me 15 mins and I will have a slew of quotes for you


Joe


----------



## lionovjudah (Jan 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Well, fine. Frankly, Joe, I'm tired of you simply saying that Scripture says something, so you have to be right, and ignoring the fact that many, many godly theologians have said the exact opposite. You never give additional Scriptural exegesis, and when you make historical points, you never cite anything, but your say so.
> 
> The board doesn't need you simply responding over and over again with "you have to prove it to me" and "I'll repeat my same assertion."
> ...





Here is one Fred:

90AD DIDACHE: "Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day: 1. But every Lord's day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. 2. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. 3. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations." (Didache: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Chapter XIV)


----------



## lionovjudah (Jan 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Well, fine. Frankly, Joe, I'm tired of you simply saying that Scripture says something, so you have to be right, and ignoring the fact that many, many godly theologians have said the exact opposite. You never give additional Scriptural exegesis, and when you make historical points, you never cite anything, but your say so.
> 
> The board doesn't need you simply responding over and over again with "you have to prove it to me" and "I'll repeat my same assertion."
> ...




More Fred

Cyprian (died 258 A.D.; beheaded for his faith during the bloody persecution of Emperor Valerian; a church leader in Carthage, North Africa) spoke in his writings of the "daily sacrifice" of the Lord's Supper. So also did Ambrose (died 397 A.D.), who was one of the most distinguished of the 4th century Church Fathers, and a leader of the church in Italy. Chrysostom (345-407 A.D.), the most popular and celebrated of the Greek Church Fathers, complained of the small number of people who showed up for the "daily sacrifice" of the Lord's Supper. Augustine (354-430 A.D.; influenced by Ambrose in Milan; became one of the most influential leaders of the Western Church; lived at Hippo, North Africa) indicated that the observance of the Lord's Supper varied from place to place. Early on there was no set pattern; some observed it daily, some weekly, some at other times. Basil (died 379 A.D.; one of the most noted church leaders in Asia Minor) wrote, "We commune four times in the week, on the Lord's Day, the fourth day, the preparation day, and the Sabbath."


----------



## gwine (Jan 26, 2005)

> Why would anyone not want to remember the Lord´s death very often.





> What orrotates (sic) me is why you would not want to remember Christs death?



You might as well as why people don't believe the Gospel. Besides the fact that your question is an appeal to emotion you ignore the Scriptures which tell why we don't do so:

1. We are all like sheep that have gone astray and want to do our own thing.

2. Our hearts are desperately wicked.

3. Paul in Romans points out the war within that he had. I know I am nowwhere as sanctified as Paul but we are both sinners deserving God's wrath if not for Christ

There are plenty of other verses that point to the fact that unless God enables us to do so our natural state is to not. You can look them up.


----------



## lionovjudah (Jan 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Well, fine. Frankly, Joe, I'm tired of you simply saying that Scripture says something, so you have to be right, and ignoring the fact that many, many godly theologians have said the exact opposite. You never give additional Scriptural exegesis, and when you make historical points, you never cite anything, but your say so.
> 
> The board doesn't need you simply responding over and over again with "you have to prove it to me" and "I'll repeat my same assertion."
> ...




ANother

"On the day called Sunday there is a meeting in one place of those who live in cities or the country, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time permits. When the reader has finished, the president in a discourse urges and invites us to the imitation of these noble things. Then we all stand up together and offer prayers. And, as said before, when we have finished the prayer, bread is brought, and wine and water, and the president similarly sends up prayers and thanksgivings to the best of his ability, and the congregation assents, saying the Amen; the distribution, and reception of the consecrated elements by each one takes place and they are sent to the absent by the deacons. Those who prosper, and who so wish, contribute, each one as much as he chooses to. What is collected is deposited with the president, and he takes care of orphans and widows, and those who are in want on account of sickness or any other cause, and those who are in bonds, and the strangers who are sojourners among us, and, briefly, he is the protector of all those in need. We all hold this common gathering on Sunday, since it is the first day, on which God transforming darkness and matter made the universe, and Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead on the same day. For they crucified him on the day before Saturday, and on the day after Saturday, he appeared to his apostles and disciples and taught them these things which I have passed on to you also for your serious consideration" [First Apology of Justin, 67].


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by lionovjudah_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Actually you are not "parroting Holy Writ" and you are not "giving Calvin's thoughts" for Calvin completely disagrees with your interpretation of "breaking of bread" and Acts 2:



> As touching prayer and doctrine the sense is plain. Communication or fellowship, and breaking of bread, may be taken diversely. Some think that breaking of bread doth signify the Lord's Supper; other some do think that it signifieth alms; other some that the faithful did banquet together 8 among themselves. *Some do think that koinwnia, doth signify the celebrating of the Holy Supper; but I do rather agree to those others who think that the same is meant by the breaking of bread*. For koinwnia, unless it have somewhat added unto it, is never found in this sense; therefore, I do rather refer it unto mutual society and fellowship, unto alms, and unto other duties of brotherly fellowship. And my reason why I would rather have breaking of bread to be understood of the Lord's Supper in this place is this, because Luke doth reckon up those things wherein the public estate of the Church is contained. Yea, he expresseth in this place four marks whereby the true and natural face of the Church may be judged. Do we then seek the true Church of Christ? The image thereof is lively depainted and set forth 9 unto us in this place. And he beginneth with doctrine which is, as it were, the soul of the Church. Neither doth he name all manner of doctrine, but the doctrine of the apostles, that is, that which the Son of God had delivered by their hands. Therefore, wheresoever the pure voice of the gospel doth sound, where men continue in the profession thereof, where they exercise themselves in hearing the same ordinarily that they may profit, without all doubt there is the Church. (Calvin on Acts 2:42)
> 
> Breaking bread from house to house. Luke signifieth unto us, that they did not only show some token of true godliness publicly, but that the course and tenor of their private life was alone in that respect. For whereas some do think that in this place, by breaking of bread is meant the Holy Supper, it seemeth to me that *Luke meant no such thing*. He signifieth, therefore, unto us, that *they used to eat together, and that thriftily*. 3 For those which make sumptuous banquets do not eat their meat together so familiarly. (Calvin on Acts 2:46)



Calvin's disciple Knox Knox stated "Four times in the year we think sufficient to the administration of the Lord's Table. This we desire to be distincted, that the superstition of the times may be avoided so far as may be" (1560 Book of Discipline)

Further, at the end of Calvin's life, he was an advocate of quarterly communion:

"On Easter-day..., I gave out the intimation that we were to celebrate the Supper on next Lord's day [Acts 20:6-11 & I Cor. 5:6-8 & 11:20-32].... I announced at the same time that no one would be admitted to the Table of the Lord by me, who had not beforehand presented himself for examination."

"I am well pleased that you have delayed the Holy Supper for another month. For at the present time, you could not administer it -- without neglecting that order which...I earnestly desire to be carefully attended to."

"The Supper was instituted by our Lord for our frequent use.... We have decided and ordered that it should be administered four times a year -- namely at Christmas; Easter; Whitsun; and on the first Sunday of September in Autumn."

Is all this definitive? I have not said so. There are other arguments from Genesis 1 and 8 relating the seasons to partaking of communion as a successor to Passover. This is an issue concerning which there has been much debate; in fact, one could argue that the greatest "man made" invention regarding it was daily/weekly communion that springs from Rome and Constantinople. But of course, just as in the House Church thread, and other threads, you know _exactly_ what the NT Church did. (But then Hippolytus must not have existed) That is what I have objected to. That is what will not be tolerated.


----------



## lionovjudah (Jan 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by lionovjudah_
> ...





Fred: I was going to say I am sorry that Scripture stands alone to this fact of observance, But i am not sorry. For how can my vile sinful heart alone be sorry for what the Spirit confirms? Weekly observance did not start with Rome or Constantinople. What does Genesis 1 and 8 have to do with observing the death of Christ weekly? 

I apologize if i ca across arrogant and I repent of that. But enough is enough. It does not matter what Calvin said about breaking the bread, He believed in a weekly observance. Where that last quote you presented came from I dont know. More to follow. 

Family devotion time


Joe


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 26, 2005)

Every one of those last quotes came from Calvin. The fact is, that they are later expressions of Calvin's view than the weekly view he expressed earlier. That is why, even later in his life when he returned from exile and had greater authority, he established quarterly communion, not weekly. He also advised others to do the same.

Genesis 1 and 8 refer to the "seasons" of festal celebration, and Calvin (and Zwingli, and the other Reformers) used that as a link to the Lord's supper using Acts 20:6, and other Scriptures. The fact is that Calvin's comments (and those of the Assembly) about frequent communion were in contrast to the Popish practice of communion once per year.

The fact is that Scripture does not stand alone to the fact of weekly observance, a reason why almost no Churches in the Reformed vein accept that interpretation. The Scots, Dutch, Swiss, Zwinglians, etc., all rejected weekly communion as a _necessary_ consequence of the Scriptures. Will it make me right if I say that the "Spirit confirms this to me" ? Of course not. That is why your argument to the same effect is ineffectual.


----------



## crhoades (Jan 26, 2005)

Dr. Francis Nigel Lee wrote a 17 page paper defending seasonal/quarterly communion from scripture history etc. I wouldn't mind to see people interact with it. (sounds eerily similar to what Fred is arguing as well) 
Quarterly Communion at Biblical Seasons Annually


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> Dr. Francis Nigel Lee wrote a 17 page paper defending seasonal/quarterly communion from scripture history etc. I wouldn't mind to see people interact with it. (sounds eerily similar to what Fred is arguing as well)
> Quarterly Communion at Biblical Seasons Annually



Yes. I have the paper. I don't agree completely with all its conclusions, but it certainly is enough to make one think.

Many of the arguments are not original with Lee (and that is a good thing, not a bad thing, in my view)

[Edited on 1/27/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## luvroftheWord (Jan 26, 2005)

Joe, 

If you will not accept sound reasoning and are content to commit logical fallacy after logical fallacy, all the while thinking you are justified because you are using the Bible to do so, then whatever. But the foolishness of your argument is evident to all. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. You cannot build a universally binding principle off of a particular case example. I think you know this is true because you avoided my _reductio_ of your position entirely. Tell me, Joe, do you believe that since we have an example of Jesus going up on a mountain to pray for a whole night, that we are therefore morally obligated to do the same?


----------



## lionovjudah (Jan 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> Joe,
> 
> If you will not accept sound reasoning and are content to commit logical fallacy after logical fallacy, all the while thinking you are justified because you are using the Bible to do so, then whatever. But the foolishness of your argument is evident to all. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. You cannot build a universally binding principle off of a particular case example. I think you know this is true because you avoided my _reductio_ of your position entirely. Tell me, Joe, do you believe that since we have an example of Jesus going up on a mountain to pray for a whole night, that we are therefore morally obligated to do the same?





What is a logical fallacy? Did not Christ say, " Teach them everything I have said and commanded?" There is enough Scriptural evidence that this WAS practiced weekly. I honestly am without words on what else to say. Is nto what we read in Scripture, The primitive Church, the Fathers enough evidence?

As to your question, I hope you are being fascecious. Are we to attempt to walk on water also? What does Scripture INTEND to teach Craig? You know that is a basic rule. 


Let me post some thoughts from the Reformed Theological Resource Center. 
One of the most significant liturgical practices reintroduced to the Church by the protestant Reformers was their insistence on frequent celebration of the Lord's Supper by the laity. Calvin suggested the Church observe the Lord's Supper whenever the church gathered together for worship. Calvin wrote that this means most Christians would observe the Lord's Supper each week.

The irony is that today, particularly after Vatican II, the Roman Catholic laity are offered and partake of the Lord's Supper as often as they attend a worship service. Congregations of the Reformation churches -- and evangelical churches in general -- typically celebrate the Lord's Supper only a few times a year. In fact, many protestant churches celebrate the Supper so rarely that they approach Luther's low standard of celebration of three or four times a year. Recall that Luther taught that if you received communion only three or four times a year, then you were treading the line of unbelieving neglect.


Calvin makes what seems to me to be a biblically reasonable suggestion: "[W]e ought always to provide that no meeting of the Church is held without the word, prayer, the dispensation of the Supper, and alms." Calvin's suggested rule permits celebration of the Lord's Supper more than once a week. Nonetheless, at the very least Calvin commends that churches should observe the Lord's supper at least weekly, because that is typically as often as they assemble together for worship. This is his explicit suggestion, as can be seen in the quotation from Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, on page 2.


I will argue that this rule -- that as often as the church assembles together for worship, so the Lord's Supper should be celebrated -- is suggested in the Scriptures. Furthermore, that the very earliest Christian churches followed this practice is suggested by early Christian writings describing the typical worship service of the early Church. Although even the earliest extra-biblical writings do not present the Church with conclusive proof of a practice being biblical, they do provide an important witness of a practice being biblical. Finally, I will present a simple theological argument as to why a local church should celebrate communion whenever it gathers together for worship.


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:


v. 17: "you come together"

v. 18: "when you come together in church"

v. 33: "when you come together to eat"

v. 20: "when you meet together it is not to eat the

Lord's supper."

v. 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


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

Note, then, how Luke describes the purpose of the Sunday meeting: they were "gathered together to break bread." Of course other events were also present -- Paul preached a lengthy sermon at the service. Yet the noted purpose of the church gathering together here is to celebrate the Lord's Supper. Just as Paul used phrases interchangeably in his letter to the Corinthians, so Luke seems to use the same phrases: To say that the Church gathers together on Sunday for a service is to say that the church gathers together to celebrate the Supper.

The same suggestion appears present in earlier passages in Acts, when Luke records the practice in the first days of the Church: "And they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. ... [A]nd they began selling their property and possessions, and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. And day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart..." (Acts 2.42,45-46).

The earliest Christian sources outside of the New Testament confirm that the Church followed Calvin's rule-of-thumb, and celebrated communion whenever the church gathered together. According to the Didache, a very early text written for Christian instruction probably between 60 and 80 A.D.: "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" (ch 14). The Didache also contains a description of how the sacrament should be administered in a worship service.

So, too, the many records of the early worship services of the Church all include the celebration of the Lord's Supper. Again while this is not compelling, it does provide evidence indicating an apostolic practice, and later Christians are obligated at least to consider such testimony. Because the Supper was written into every early liturgy (at least that I know of) it indicates that the early Church followed the practice of celebrating the Eucharist whenever the church assembled to worship God, typically on Sunday. Calvin and Luther recovered the same emphasis in their desire to renew worship along more scriptural lines.

Thus, are Christians supposed to "proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" (1 Peter 2.9)? That proclamation occurs in the Eucharist (1 Co 11.26). Does the Church come together as Christ's body (Eph 1.23, Col 1.18,24)? We share share in His body by eating the bread (1 Co 10.16).

Do we need to drink the blood of Christ, in which there is life, in order to live eternally (Jn 6.54, Lev 17.11)? We drink Christ's blood in His Supper (1 Co 10.16). Is the Church the creature of a New Covenant (Jer 31.31, Heb 8.8, Heb 9.15)? Jesus introduced the New Covenant at the last Supper (Mt 26.26-29).

Does God discipline the Christian for our own good (Heb 12.10)? God disciplines us in the eucharist (1 Co 11.32). Do we need a sacrifice for sin so that God will pass over our sins (Heb 9.22)? The Eucharist is our Passover feast (1 Co 5.8-9). Does Jesus tell us that if we hear His voice and open the door that He will come in and He will dine with us (Rev 3.20)? Do we not dine with Jesus, in His presence, in eating His Supper (Jn 6.56, cf., Jn 6.58, 1 Co 10.3-4, Dt 14.26).

Are Christians told to assemble together (Heb 10.25)? Paul tells us that the many assemble together in one body because we share one loaf (1 Co 10.17) and drink of one Spirit (1 Co 12.13).

Calvin on Communion


"[T]he sacrament [of the Lord's Supper] might be celebrated in the most becoming manner, if it were dispensed to the Church very frequently, at least once a week. ...


"What we have hitherto said of the sacrament, abundantly shows that it was not instituted to be received once a year and that perfunctorily (as is now commonly the custom); but that all Christians might have it in frequent use, and frequently call to mind the sufferings of Christ, thereby sustaining and confirming their faith: stirring themselves up to sing the praises of God, and proclaim his goodness; cherishing and testifying towards each other that mutual charity, the bond of which they see in the unity of the body of Christ. ... Thus we ought always to provide that no meeting of the Church is held without the word, prayer, the dispensation of the Supper, and alms. ...


"By these enactments, holy men wished to retain and ensure the use of frequent communion, as handed down by the apostles themslves; and which, while it was most salutary to believers, they saw gradually falling into desuetude by the negligence of the people. Of his own age, Augustine testifies: 'The sacrament of the unity of out Lord's body is, in some places, provided daily, and in others at certain intervals, at the Lord's table; and at that table some partake to life, and others to destruction' (August. Tract. 26, in Joann.6). And in the first Epistle to Januarius he says: 'Some communicate daily in the body and blood of the Lord; others receive it on certain days: in some places, not a day intervenes on which it is not offered: in others, it is offered only on the Sabbath and the Lord's day: in others, on the Lord's day only.


"Most assuredly, the custom which prescribes communion once a year is an invention of the devil, by what instrumentality soever it may have been introduced. ... Each week, at least, the table of the Lord ought to have been spread for the company of Christians, and the promises declared on which we might then spiritually feed."


John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, bk IV, ch 17.


Joe


----------

