2nd try, 1689 Baptist question

[BaptistCanuk]

This is copied from my Baptist Confession of Faith, 1689 word for word:

The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use, and to take and break the bread; to take the cup, and, they communicating also themselves, to give both to the communicants.

1 Cor. 11:23-26, etc.

I'd like to know where the belief comes from that only appointed ministers can bless and serve communion, when this passage doesn't support this belief whatsoever. Can anyone help?

 

[Puritanhead]

Yeah, I tried first try, and then you deleted it.

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Well, what happened was I went to look at it and I had triple-posted. I went to delete one and it deleted all three. Argh.

 

[Puritanhead]

As I tried to say before, before you deleting the thread, I don't think the WCF adherants disagree that God appoints "ministers" to observe the Lord's Supper / Communion Ordinance. Though, the phrasing might be different.

 

[BaptistCanuk]

A) the deleting the thread was a mistake.

B) I don't know if they agree or disagree. I have just seen people say that only appointed ministers can do it and I don't see the passage of Scripture used to support this assertion in the Confession as having anything to do with it. That's why I am puzzled.

 

[Scott Bushey]

WCF ch 29

III. The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to declare his word of institution to the people; to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants;[5] but to none who are not then present in the congregation.[6]

5. Matt. 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; I Cor. 10:16-17; 11:23-27
6. Acts 20:7; I Cor. 11:20


Ch 28 of the LBC

I. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in His church to the end of the world.[1]

1. Matt. 28:19-20; I Cor. 11:26

II. These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.[2]

2. Matt. 28:19; I Cor. 4:1

 

[Puritanhead]

II. These holy appointments are to be administered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ.

That's what I was thinking. I'm not aloof from the WCF.

Besides, it says, "For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord´s body" (1 Cor. 11:29). Why would we expect anything less of ministers appointed to administer the ordinance?

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Thanks for providing the alternate view Scott. Well, like I said, I posted word for word from my Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689.

Now I will take a look at the Scriptures the WCF uses as references and see if they really have anything to say about the matter. Because the one listed in mine, had nothing to do with the matter.

 

[Puritanhead]

I don't think Presbyterians and Baptists are that far apart at all on the Lord's Supper, regardless of the confessional means of articulating the doctrine.

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Originally posted by Puritanhead
I don't think Presbyterians and Baptists are that far apart at all on the Lord's Supper, regardless of the confessional means of articulating the doctrine.

Maybe so. Both sides believe it is a serious matter and not to be taken lightly.

 

[Jie-Huli]

Greetings Brian,

Scott was right to point you to Chapter 28 of the LBCF, as this is the chapter which directly addresses the question of who may lawfully administer the sacraments.

The proof texts given for the section you quoted from Chapter 30 were not designed to address this question.

The full list of proof texts for the relevant section in Chapter 28 are as follows:

"II. These holy appointments are to be adminstered by those only who are qualified and thereunto called, according to the commission of Christ."
Matt. 24.45-51; Luke 12.41-44; I Cor. 4.1; Titus 1.5-7.

1 Cor. 4 establishes that Paul and other ministers of the Gospel are "stewards of the mysteries of God".

The passages from Matthew and Luke make clear that God has appointed certain "stewards" to give God's people their portion of meat in due season; this would naturally include the ordinances. To quote Samuel Waldron from his "A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith":

"It is God's stewards who have the authority to give God's servants their spiritual food --- to teach and dispense to them the mysteries of God. This, of course, includes the public ministry of the Word of God. But since baptism and the Lord's Supper are visible symbols of that spiritual food and those mysteries, it is the prerogative of God's stewards to oversee and administer such ordinances. Is the Lord's Supper the spiritual ration to be given to God's servants? Then it is the spiritual responsibility of the spiritual stewards --- the elders --- to administer it." (p.341-342)

While not cited at this point in the Confession, 1 Cor. 11.17-34 makes it clear, incidentally, that the Lord's Supper is only to be celebrated when the church is formally assembled.

Titus 1.5-7 is cited to show that elders ("bishops") are called the stewards of God, this "steward" being the same word used in Luke 12.

Blessings,

Jie-Huli

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Thank you Jie-Huli. Greetings to you as well.

I appreciate you and Scott giving me the expanded version of the section from the LBCF. I will check those out after work, or at work. lol

You said, ""It is God's stewards who have the authority to give God's servants their spiritual food --- to teach and dispense to them the mysteries of God. This, of course, includes the public ministry of the Word of God."

I don't believe that is necessarily the case. That would be an assumption. I believe all it is referring to is the public ministry of the Word of God. I don't see communion as spiritual food. I see it as a memorial done to remember the Lord Jesus until He comes.

 

[BaptistCanuk]

"The passages from Matthew and Luke make clear that God has appointed certain "stewards" to give God's people their portion of meat in due season; this would naturally include the ordinances."

Again, I believe this would be an assumption. Meat and spiritual food is just the Word of God as far as I know.

"While not cited at this point in the Confession, 1 Cor. 11.17-34 makes it clear, incidentally, that the Lord's Supper is only to be celebrated when the church is formally assembled."

Does it? Isn't church the group of people in the body? When more than one are gathered together can they not have worship?

Peace.


[Edited on 9-2-2006 by BaptistCanuk]

 

[Jie-Huli]

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
"The passages from Matthew and Luke make clear that God has appointed certain "stewards" to give God's people their portion of meat in due season; this would naturally include the ordinances."

Again, I believe this would be an assumption. Meat and spiritual food is just the Word of God as far as I know.

"While not cited at this point in the Confession, 1 Cor. 11.17-34 makes it clear, incidentally, that the Lord's Supper is only to be celebrated when the church is formally assembled."

Does it? Isn't church the group of people in the body? When more than one are gathered together can they not have worship?

Peace.


[Edited on 9-2-2006 by BaptistCanuk]

Brian,

I believe that looking at the whole context of I Cor. 11.17-34, it cannot be refuted that this is speaking of the formal gathering of the church. Verses 18 and 22 use the term "church" expressly.

And this is really decisive to the question of who may adminster the Supper. If this is an ordinace that belongs to the church, then who else could adminster it but those who have been entrusted as stewards of the church? The ordinances along with the public ministry of the Word are the mysteries of which ministers have been made stewards according to I Cor. 4.1.

Blessings,

Jie-Huli

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Maybe so, I will have to see. I do think that "church" is just the body so anytime there is more than one believer gathered together, they are the church.

In regards to stewards, aren't we all stewards? I am as much responsible to share the truth as a pastor; I am just held to a lower standard. And since there is so much confusion in the body of Christ, I think I will heed Scripture's warning for teachers. As much as I'd like to teach, I'd rather not teach at all than teach error.

 

[jaybird0827]

Brian,

Authority in the church is taught throughout scripture Old and New Testament. Not all are called to the teaching office or to the ruling office. Jesus Christ is King and head of the church. He rules her, and the means he uses are those whom he gifts to teach and to rule.

The Scripture passages referred to by Jie-Huli and by the divines who authored the church standards are important and helpful. It also helps to know that these various Scriptures are understood historically in the context of the whole of Scripture. This is true of the all the confessions represented here - the Belgic, the 1689 London, the Westminster, as all cite Scripture.

Note that even the Apostle Paul openly recognizes this authority in what he teaches in the epistles, for example Titus and I Timothy; see also II Timothy 2:2. Compare this with his eventual response to a high priest (who was, by the way, wicked), Acts 23:1-5 especially note verse 5.

There is so much here, much more than can be discussed in a thread. Although I am old enough to be your grandfather, I am not gifted at this time with ruling and therefore do not hold office in the church. I have had to learn some very painful lessons in this particular area, and not all that long ago.

There is a series of lectures on church membership that my pastor gave some years ago. I am currently listening to these. I strongly encourage you to do the same. This is good material. You're going to disagree with what he says on baptism, but I think you can handle that and still find that there is a lot more that would answer the kind of questions you've been asking.

Please also take time to consider Larger Catechism questions 123-133 on the Fifth Commandment.

Blessings in Christ,
J. Sulzmann

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Hey Jay, how are ya? Thank you for the links and references.

I understand that certain people in the church are in authority. I agree. I just don't believe Scripture teaches that only certain people can serve communion and baptize people. The Great Commission was given to us all I believe. But I will check all those things out. Thanks again brother.

Funny you mention you could be my grandfather. My grandpa was a baptist preacher when he was younger. He died, oh, 14 years ago today. God bless.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by Puritanhead
I don't think Presbyterians and Baptists are that far apart at all on the Lord's Supper, regardless of the confessional means of articulating the doctrine.

Really? I'm "shocked" by this statement, honestly. I guess it depends on "what kind" of Baptists you are speaking of, but the general divisions caused by the Reformation in the non-Roman Church were over the Lord's Supper. Everything else could have been resolved or come to a consensus on, in my opinion. Westminster was an ecumenical document, after all.

Hypothetically, I would think that were I to ask 10 Baptists (of any kind) if they believed that in the Lord's Supper they truly spiritually fed on the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, I would be lucky to have more than 1 or 2 say agreed with such a statement. Maybe it is just my experience as a child in the Southern Baptist Convention (and now my association with friends at SBTS here in Louisville), but I don't see much "agreement" over the Lord's Supper, other than the fact that it should be done and was commanded by Christ. Everything from the type of bread and "juice" to how it should be viewed to how often it should be done and why is "all over the board" between Baptists as a sect of Christianity, not to mention compared to other Protestants.

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Well, I'm open to the truth. If it were true that the bread and wine really are the body and blood of Christ, I would have no problem believing that even as a Baptist.

Jesus DID say "this is my body..." (I've discussed this with friends from church). When they counter that Jesus said He is a door as well but that doesn't make Him a literal door, I say those are two different things. Besides, Jesus said He is the Saviour and they take that literally. So they are picking and choosing what to take literally and what will be symbolic (according to their own judgment). But I digress. Sorry.

 

[BaptistCanuk]

I've heard many bad things about the SBC. I don't know if they're true but unfortunately, many people think all Baptists are SBC. Heck, my fiancee thinks all Baptists are like SBC.

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Originally posted by Puritanhead
I don't think Presbyterians and Baptists are that far apart at all on the Lord's Supper, regardless of the confessional means of articulating the doctrine.

Really? I'm "shocked" by this statement, honestly. I guess it depends on "what kind" of Baptists you are speaking of, ...

I don't care for the SBC anyway. The old historic Baptist Congregationalists and Reformed Baptists are few and far between these days; and do not demean Communion like the SBC types do. And I couldn't blame you for not having fond memories of the SBC, given my experience in run-ins with them during college years.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

This may be of help:

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

Who May Administer the Sacraments? An inquiry into administering the sacraments by the ordained Elder of a local church.

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Originally posted by Puritanhead
I don't think Presbyterians and Baptists are that far apart at all on the Lord's Supper, regardless of the confessional means of articulating the doctrine.

Really? I'm "shocked" by this statement, honestly. I guess it depends on "what kind" of Baptists you are speaking of, but the general divisions caused by the Reformation in the non-Roman Church were over the Lord's Supper. Everything else could have been resolved or come to a consensus on, in my opinion. Westminster was an ecumenical document, after all.

Hypothetically, I would think that were I to ask 10 Baptists (of any kind) if they believed that in the Lord's Supper they truly spiritually fed on the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, I would be lucky to have more than 1 or 2 say agreed with such a statement. Maybe it is just my experience as a child in the Southern Baptist Convention (and now my association with friends at SBTS here in Louisville), but I don't see much "agreement" over the Lord's Supper, other than the fact that it should be done and was commanded by Christ. Everything from the type of bread and "juice" to how it should be viewed to how often it should be done and why is "all over the board" between Baptists as a sect of Christianity, not to mention compared to other Protestants.

Depends on what "kind" of Baptist. Typical SBC, you may not find 1 in 100 who see it is anything more than a memorial, and this includes most who are more "Calvinistic". Among 1689ers you find both Zwinglian (memorial) views and Calvinistic views, although I've encountered more of the former.