# Communion at the family altar?



## ooguyx (Mar 19, 2010)

I was reading this book: Amazon.com: The Family Worship Book: A Resource Book for Family Devotions (9781857924015): Terry L. Johnson: Books

and the author makes a point of saying that everything in the communial worship on Sunday's should be present in the family worship except the sacraments.

As I currently understand it, "tha sacraments" means communion so why is this not included in the family worship schedule. Is a husband not qualified in administering the communion to his family?

thanks


----------



## Gage Browning (Mar 19, 2010)

No he's not because it's a sacrament for the Church...not just the family.


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 19, 2010)

I agree with Josh and Gage, but I also add that the notion of a "family altar" is also disturbing.


----------



## ooguyx (Mar 19, 2010)

Gage Browning said:


> No he's not because it's a sacrament for the Church...not just the family.





Joshua said:


> No, a husband is not qualified to do so, even at church (unless he's the minister administering said sacrament to the whole congregation).


 
Can someone explain the rationale to me? Not that I don't believe you, but I am trying to increase my understanding. Thank you for your help.

---------- Post added at 10:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:57 AM ----------




VictorBravo said:


> I agree with Josh and Gage, but I also add that the notion of a "family altar" is also disturbing.


 
Why is that disturbing?


----------



## Gage Browning (Mar 19, 2010)

VictorBravo said:


> I agree with Josh and Gage, but I also add that the notion of a "family altar" is also disturbing.


 Ditto with Raymond...
That reminds me of a story that I heard Michael S. Horton tell once...He said he was talking with a nice southern gentleman from the deep south who was a committed Southern Baptist. Horton asked the Southern Baptist Elder statesman..."if he was a Roman Catholic"...the man said "son if you think I'm a Roman Catholic, you are about as lost as a ball in tall grass"...Horton responded...oh ok then..what's that thing ya'll do at the end of the service...? The man replied..."you mean the altar call?" Horton then explained to the man, that Protestants don't have altars...because the sacrifice has already been made! So yea...I don't much like the term altar. But that was long way of getting to that point!

---------- Post added at 01:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:01 PM ----------




ooguyx said:


> Gage Browning said:
> 
> 
> > No he's not because it's a sacrament for the Church...not just the family.
> ...


 
The rationale is that family worship is not the worship of the Church. There are two sacraments for the church, baptism and the supper. The family is a part of the church, but not the Church. That is one of the areas of discontinuity between the supper and say the passover meal.


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 19, 2010)

ooguyx said:


> VictorBravo said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with Josh and Gage, but I also add that the notion of a "family altar" is also disturbing.
> ...




Gage said it. There is no need for an altar any more. Protestants did away with altars early on. It is strange to see them coming back.


----------



## ooguyx (Mar 19, 2010)

Regarding "family alter": It was a term used in the book. I thought it was just a different way of saying family devotions. I don't take it to mean anything else. Apologies for the misunderstanding.


----------



## Gage Browning (Mar 19, 2010)

No Worries Rob. There is a slow but sure swelling of support amongst reformed folk to start forming their own little churches with their families, administering the sacraments etc...so it could be just a poor use of the term in the book, meaning family devotions, but I've seen it too many times used to mean alter. So no worries brother. (We former Ind. Fundy baptists are probably on the lookout for the term too much!)


----------



## Gage Browning (Mar 19, 2010)




----------



## ooguyx (Mar 19, 2010)

Joshua said:


> Dear Rob,
> 
> As Gage aptly noted the Sacraments are a ministry for the church, not _merely_ (or separately) the family. Further, administration of said Sacraments are to be performed by those men who hold office as ministers in the Church, for said men are the under shepherds of our souls.


 
Any resources you can point me to where I can learn about this? When I first became a christian (in a pentecostal church) communion was taught as something that we can do even by ourselves.


----------



## Gage Browning (Mar 19, 2010)

How Should I Benefit from Communion? - Reformation21

This is a simple and yet wonderful explanation from Ian Hamilton that speaks to some of your concerns.


----------



## Edward (Mar 19, 2010)

I would think that WCF 29 IV applies as well, as this would appear to fall within the definition of a private mass. 

The prohibitions of WCF 27 IV have already been alluded to.

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html


----------



## N. Eshelman (Mar 19, 2010)

ooguyx said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> > Dear Rob,
> ...



Rob, I will confess that when I first became a Christian in 1996 I was taught that communion was part of our everyday spirituality. I can remember more than one time 'communing' with friends over saltines and Ocean Spray. 

Keep growing in grace, brother. Biblical truth is freeing, not restricting to your spiritual life.


----------



## MRC (Mar 19, 2010)

ooguyx said:


> Joshua said:
> 
> 
> > Dear Rob,
> ...


 
I have been ministering to a number of guys that were raised in Pentacostal churches. They had a massive amount of damage done to their understanding of God and His Word which is awkward and, at times, difficult to address and work through. However, after only a few months they have begun to understand their sinful nature and what Christ has _already_ done for them. Considering where they came from it is increadible how the Lord has taught them. Keep reading the Word and studying books written by gifted _reformed_ teachers and asking questions here. Indeed truth will set you from from bondage!


----------



## ooguyx (Mar 19, 2010)

MRC said:


> Any resources you can point me to where I can learn about this? When I first became a christian (in a pentecostal church) communion was taught as something that we can do even by ourselves.


 


> I have been ministering to a number of guys that were raised in Pentacostal churches. They had a massive amount of damage done to their understanding of God and His Word which is awkward and, at times, difficult to address and work through. However, after only a few months they have begun to understand their sinful nature and what Christ has _already_ done for them. Considering where they came from it is increadible how the Lord has taught them. Keep reading the Word and studying books written by gifted _reformed_ teachers and asking questions here. Indeed truth will set you from from bondage!


 
I wasn't raised christian, I became one at 19, but I will agree that the pentecostal teaching has been enormously damaging to my theology and christian walk. I still have major struggles because of it.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 19, 2010)

The point of the sacraments being churchly-things, is that they are visible-Word. They are elements of preaching the gospel. And they explicitly point to union with Christ that is not only personal but also communal. Sacramental participation is a sign of that bond with Christ and one another. It is a public testament of Whose you are, and to whom you belong.

To be baptized is to be publicly united to the church. To have Christ's name set on you. To be a private Christian is a great blessing. But there is a proper sense of loss, if that secret union is absent its outward and communal nature. This should make those who are lonely in a closed country, or have no established church, plead with God to bring the church to them, or them to the gathered church.

Likewise, in regard to communion: no such observance is proper outside the gathered body. Our confession explicitly rules out "private communion" as contrary to the nature of the sacraments. It is a witness to our unity in the faith, and not to my private religious experience. Nor is it proper for someone other than a minister of the Word and Sacrament to administer such. For example, in a missionary context, he is "bringing the church" to those without it. Parents (or fathers alone) are not ordained by Christ to administer his ordinances. The family is not the church. The family is a building block of many societies, including the church, but it is not THE church. It is often a mini-church, when its members gather for family worship, etc. But that "church" description is too narrow to be the church in its full character.


On the related point, raised by someone above: Note that the memorial Passover was a communal observance. Everyone who partook went to the Tabernacle, or to the Temple in Jerusalem. Those commanded to attend were males, 13 yrs old and up. It is by no means uncontroversial to assert that keeping Passover was a family meal. No ceremonially unclean person was admitted to the ritual, including not less than approximately 1/4 of the female population upon every occasion--assuming they were ever allowed, since not being circumcised, another requirement.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 19, 2010)

Here is George Gillespie on the subject.

Whether Any Other But A Minister, Lawfully Called And Ordained, May Administer The Sacraments, Baptism And The Lord's Supper.

Matthew McMahon

http://www.apuritansmind.com/Pastoral/McMahonWhoAdministersTheSacrament.htm


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Mar 19, 2010)

Many have a defective Ecclesiology today, even in Reformed churches. The sacraments are given to the church, not to individuals or families. WCF XXV:iii:

Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.​
The Westminster Directory for Family Worship provided safeguards against family worship being regarded or replacing authorized public worship:

III. As the charge and office of interpreting the holy scriptures is a part of the ministerial calling, which none (however otherwise qualified) should take upon him in any place, but he that is duly called thereunto by God and his kirk; so in every family where there is any that can read, the holy scriptures should be read ordinarily to the family; and it is commendable, that thereafter they confer, and by way of conference make some good use of what hath been read and heard. As, for example, if any sin be reproved in the word read, use may be made thereof to make all the family circumspect and watchful against the same; or if any judgment be threatened, or mentioned to have been inflicted, in that portion of scripture which is read, use may be made to make all the family fear lest the same or a worse judgment befall them, unless they beware of the sin that procured it: and, finally, if any duty be required, or comfort held forth in a promise, use may be made to stir up themselves to employ Christ for strength to enable them for doing the commanded duty, and to apply the offered comfort. In all which the master of the family is to have the chief hand; and any member of the family may propone a question or doubt for resolution.

IV. The head of the family is to take care that none of the family withdraw himself from any part of family-worship: and, seeing the ordinary performance of all the parts of family-worship belongeth properly to the head of the family, the minister is to stir up such as are lazy, and train up such as are weak, to a fitness to these exercises; it being always free to persons of quality to entertain one approved by the presbytery for performing family-exercise. And in other families, where the head of the family is unfit, that another, constantly residing in the family, approved by the minister and session, may be employed in that service, wherein the minister and session are to be countable to the presbytery. And if a minister, by divine Providence, be brought to any family, it is requisite that at no time he convene a part of the family for worship, secluding the rest, except in singular cases especially concerning these parties, which (in Christian prudence) need not, or ought not, to be imparted to others.

V. Let no idler, who hath no particular calling, or vagrant person under pretence of a calling, be suffered to perform worship in families, to or for the same; seeing persons tainted with errors, or aiming at division, may be ready (after that manner) to creep into houses, and lead captive silly and unstable souls.

VI. At family-worship, a special care is to be had that each family keep by themselves; neither requiring, inviting, nor admitting persons from divers families, unless it be those who are lodged with them, or at meals, or otherwise with them upon some lawful occasion.

VII. Whatsoever have been the effects and fruits of meetings of persons of divers families in the times of corruption or trouble, (in which cases many things are commendable, which otherwise are not tolerable,) yet, when God hath blessed us with peace and purity of the gospel, such meetings of persons of divers families (except in cases mentioned in these Directions) are to be disapproved, as tending to the hinderance of the religious exercise of each family by itself, to the prejudice of the publick ministry, to the rending of the families of particular congregations, and (in progress of time) of the whole kirk. Besides many offences which may come thereby, to the hardening of the hearts of carnal men, and grief of the godly.​
Historic Church Documents at Reformed.org


----------



## dudley (Mar 19, 2010)

QUOTE=Gage Browning;767470]


VictorBravo said:


> I agree with Josh and Gage, but I also add that the notion of a "family altar" is also disturbing.


 Ditto with Raymond...
That reminds me of a story that I heard Michael S. Horton tell once...He said he was talking with a nice southern gentleman from the deep south who was a committed Southern Baptist. Horton asked the Southern Baptist Elder statesman..."if he was a Roman Catholic"...the man said "son if you think I'm a Roman Catholic, you are about as lost as a ball in tall grass"...Horton responded...oh ok then..what's that thing ya'll do at the end of the service...? The man replied..."you mean the altar call?" Horton then explained to the man, that Protestants don't have altars...because the sacrifice has already been made! So yea...I don't much like the term altar. But that was long way of getting to that point!

---------- Post added at 01:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:01 PM ----------




ooguyx said:


> Gage Browning said:
> 
> 
> > No he's not because it's a sacrament for the Church...not just the family.
> ...


 
The rationale is that family worship is not the worship of the Church. There are two sacraments for the church, baptism and the supper. The family is a part of the church, but not the Church. That is one of the areas of discontinuity between the supper and say the passover meal.[/QUOTE]

I, Dudley also say ditto with Raymond...as a Reformed Protestant and and a Presbyterian who is an ex roman catholic I have totally removed the word "altar" from my religious vocabulary. An altar is paganistic and insinuates the offering of a sacrifice. We know according to the Westminster confession and the LBC that when celebrating "The Lords Supper" it is His table we are called to and no sacrifice takes place. That is the problem with the roman catholic mass and eucharist and why it is a blasphemy and an abomination and repugnant to scripture!


----------

