Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Freshman
I have argued that he changed his mind from supporting an "as-often-as-the-congregation-meets" after meeting Knox - I have posted the paper in #27.
Frequency of the Lord’s Supper and the Regulative Principle
- Thread starter Northern Crofter
- Start date
- Status
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Freshman
This continues to assume that "frequent" cannot mean 3 or 4 times a year. Given the state of the Church and lack of ministers at the time, I would suggest this was intended for those congregations who could only celebrate once a year (or less) when a minister could travel to them. This was quite common at times in Scotland and in the American colonies.
TBredenhof
Puritan Board Freshman
3. I agree that frequency is not part of the nature. Rather, the frequency *follows* from the nature and purpose of the sacrament.
4. Nearly every biblical account of preaching occurs outside the church gathering and outside the liturgy. I am also not saying you 'cannot have the Word without the seal.' Rather I am asking 'what makes more liturgical sense, to include the ordinary means of grace, or to exclude them? I affirm that it makes more sense that the liturgy includes all the means of grace.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Freshman
3. This may be true - if so, we may not completely agree as to the nature and purpose of the sacrament.
4. I did not mean to have it inferred that you were saying one "cannot have the Word without the seal" - but I have encountered many that make similar arguments to yours doing so. Do you have more than one liturgical meeting on the Lord's Day? If so, do you celebrate the Lord's Supper at all of them?
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
I'd be interested in hearing what your session says. For my own part, it seems to me that this statement merely states positively what must happen if an infrequent administration occurs; it says nothing about what to do under frequent circumstances, thereby leaving open the Independents and Presbyterians to continue their usual practices. I am uncertain of the exact historical intent, but I wonder if these extra teachings had a double purpose: both for due preparation and teaching how to duly prepare; if that is the case, this is not referring to the usual preparation services that would have occurred but special care for teaching how to prepare on top of or as part of (potentially and unmentioned in the Directory) regular preparation services. (As possible point of evidence to look into, there is the mention of warning the Sabbath day before, which would be needed if the Supper is not regular and uncertain to be administered, but I don't know if this was normally done; and the preparation service is not the day before, as per Scottish practice, though this is weaker evidence since the Directory mentions at or about the table in accommodation to the Independents.)
JH
Puritan Board Sophomore
I appreciate it Ramon. I'll try to gather their thoughts or other resources the next time I have a group sit down.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
This might be unique to me, but I just noticed the flow of the argument and the OP. The OP seemed to say, correctly, that Scripture doesn't mandate outright the frequency of the Supper. We should go to "good and necessary consequence." That's good, though I think even then it doesn't spell out how frequent. The discussion shifted rather subtly to interpreting the Directory in light of the older Scots practice. Whatever merit there might be in that, that isn't good and necessary consequence from Scripture.
Grant Van Leuven
Puritan Board Freshman
Here are two articles on the topic I hope will be helpful (the second link is my work reflecting ministry at our church):
www.reformation21.org
www.reformation21.org
Frequent Feeding
The question of frequency—how often or seldom we do something—isn’t a trivial matter. This is true about consumption. How often should we eat and drink? Most of us partake three times per day. Some prefer smaller quantities more often, while others gorge themselves at every meal.
A Frequent Expression of Love
We so easily forget our Lord without a frequent reminder.
JH
Puritan Board Sophomore
You are correct, unfortunately. My posts didn't really help much in that regard.
I think this discussion from an exegetical and GNC standpoint is going to come down to:
1) Whether the language of the 'breaking of bread' is specifically in relation to the Sacrament in the book of Acts
2) Even if we grant #1, does the book of Acts not only describe but prescribe a particular frequency? People love to refer to Acts 20:7 for weekly observance, but the text itself is lacking any real description as to whether every single Lord's Day they distributed the Lord's Supper, or that they simply did upon that Lord's Day before them.
3) Whether there be any relationship to the Passover preparation and other feasts – that is, what is the extent of said preparation.
Last edited:
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Freshman
As the originator of the OP, I agree. The hope was to have this question answered/discussed: "So what are the Biblical and/or historical reasons (as opposed to personal/denominational preferences and experiences) for and/or against A-E?" ("A-E should have been 1-5). The majority of responses were mostly personal/denominational preferences and experiences. Having come into the Reformed fold some 30 years ago, I have yet to find something in the original work if the Westminster Assembly that I cannot support (with one minor exception in The Form of Presbyterian Church Government). Anything that originally troubled me eventually dissipated in the light of studying Scripture and the exposition of our spiritual fathers. So while I still try to study like a Berean, I also give deference to the standards and the original language. But I have always tried (and largely failed) to find the reasoning (Biblical, theological, logical) for how frequently the Lord's Supper should be observed. So, by default, I turn to the testimony of the faithful who preceded us - if they say the Scottish Kirk is the best example of the faith, I believe them because they seem to be right about just about everything else. These questions remain in my mind:
(1) The majority of responses seem to simply propose leaving the matter of frequency up to sessions which leads to the first question: What does a session look to in order to decide what frequency is "most convenient for the comfort and edification of the people committed to their charge" (RPW)? (Please be specific)
(2) Why were seasons created (Gen. 1.14) and then specifically and providentially preserved in the Noahic Covenant (Gen.8.22)? (I will admit that many years ago the article by Rev. Dr. F.N. Lee - that someone referenced above - started me down this path of inquiry) https://spindleworks.com/library/lee/quarterly.htm
(3) Should I just end this thread and/or start one on just one of the 5 frequencies in this OP?
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Freshman
I appreciate the pastoral appeal of these articles. However, for multiple reasons, this statement (which appears in a note in both articles) caught my eye: "This post assumes that biblical exegesis rather than church tradition is the basis for this requirement."Here are two articles on the topic I hope will be helpful (the second link is my work reflecting ministry at our church):
Frequent Feeding
The question of frequency—how often or seldom we do something—isn’t a trivial matter. This is true about consumption. How often should we eat and drink? Most of us partake three times per day. Some prefer smaller quantities more often, while others gorge themselves at every meal.
A Frequent Expression of Love
We so easily forget our Lord without a frequent reminder.
(1) This assumes (dangerously in my view) that church traditions are not based on Biblical exegesis. Unless one can prove there is error in the "tradition," it should not be overturned, and even then, not without the approval of the Church: "Remove not the ancient landmark, Which thy fathers have set." (Proverbs 22:28);
(2) Making a weekly observance a requirement ("the basis for this requirement") goes beyond the Westminster Standards which were intended to bring unity and uniformity to the Church - I don't believe anyone could or would argue that the Standards can be interpreted as requiring a weekly observance. I think most that have posted have observed some level of flexibility in the Standards regarding frequency.
Engaging with these well-written articles would be it's own OP, but much of what is raised ("breaking bread" for example) is dealt with in some form or the other above in this OP.
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
When confronted with a Reformation practice with which we do not necessarily agree, we too often resort to the argument of "imperfect reformation"; whilst at the same time assiduously holding to other Reformation practices and teachings. That is not to say the Reformation was perfect from day one, nor that some churches did not hold on to certain traditions (whilst in substance repudiating them, such as the Dutch churches continuing to observe Easter and Christmas). But I think it behoves us to reckon with Reformation practices we take exception to and not just dismiss them as the fruits of an imperfect reformation or having not been thought through sufficiently.
I think the way this discussion has progressed is itself an evidence of the fact Scripture does not give a definition of "frequent" or "often". Personally I'm quite satisfied submitting to the wisdom of the godly divines and ministers of the past who saw no need to observe the Lord's Supper more than a few times a year, and indeed thought such a practice most prudent, but to observe it in a manner most conducive to facilitating a meeting between the Bridegroom and the Bride.
And Andrew made a very good point: do all those who advocate a more frequent observance advocate weekly? If not, why not? And do those who advocate weekly do so for every service of the church: twice on Sabbath and mid week prayer meetings? If not, why not? Unless one is going to argue that every single service of the church in which preaching occurs must also have the Lord's Supper then we all of us qualify "frequent" and "often" and usually for no reason other than prudence or circumstance. And I think it's clear that Scripture does not require the sacrament at every occurrence of preaching.
I think the way this discussion has progressed is itself an evidence of the fact Scripture does not give a definition of "frequent" or "often". Personally I'm quite satisfied submitting to the wisdom of the godly divines and ministers of the past who saw no need to observe the Lord's Supper more than a few times a year, and indeed thought such a practice most prudent, but to observe it in a manner most conducive to facilitating a meeting between the Bridegroom and the Bride.
And Andrew made a very good point: do all those who advocate a more frequent observance advocate weekly? If not, why not? And do those who advocate weekly do so for every service of the church: twice on Sabbath and mid week prayer meetings? If not, why not? Unless one is going to argue that every single service of the church in which preaching occurs must also have the Lord's Supper then we all of us qualify "frequent" and "often" and usually for no reason other than prudence or circumstance. And I think it's clear that Scripture does not require the sacrament at every occurrence of preaching.
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
Today it is very common for Roman Catholic churches to hold daily masses. When would the practice have changed do you think?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
In large measure probably after the Counter Reformation. I do know that in the middle ages regular communion was infrequent. That was one of the main concerns of the 4th Lateran Council (1215).
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
On 2), this is not in any sense a full answer, but merely a caution. From our northern perspective, we assume there are four seasons in the year, each three months long. It's not clear that Biblical writers would have thought the same way. The Mediterranean climate is quite different, and the same word can be translated "autumn" (Prov 20:4 ESV) and "winter"(Jer 36:22). The Noahic covenant only mentions two seasons "summer and winter" (or perhaps "summer harvest and autumn harvest").
The Hebrew word in Genesis 1:14 is mo'edim which generally refers to religious festivals rather than "seasons" as such (it is not used in Gen 8:14). Since these are to be marked by solar and lunar phenomena, it would make sense to think that the author has in view the monthly new moon festivals, and Passover, Weeks and Tabernacles. Galatians 4:10 suggests that Paul equates kairoi particularly with the latter festivals, since he adds "months" separately to the list. These festivals are not evenly distributed, occurring in the first, third and seventh months. In order to get a fourth annual festival. Dr Lee has to add Hannukah, which of course is post Biblical, and can hardly be what Genesis 1:14 has in view.
Once again we need to ask about hermeneutics: how do we get from God appointing times for Israel's annual festivals to God appointing times for communion? It is not enough for the RPW that someone somewhere in the Bible has done the thing we are advocating. How do we know that this is a proper application? If it is apropos, does it argue for communion three times a year, on the 14th of the First (Jewish) month (Easter), seven weeks later (Pentecost), and the middle of the seventh (Jewish) month. If we add Hannukah (Christmas), on what basis do we do that? Why all three festivals and not simply Passover, so that we all celebrate communion at Easter? How do we reckon with the fact that these festivals were not simply one sabbath long but about a week long? Is that your justification for communion seasons? How do you avoid the implication that you have just made an excellent case for Christians celebrating Christmas, Easter and Pentecost?
This doesn't seem like an argument the Puritans would have eagerly embraced.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Freshman
The only reference to this topic that I can find in the 4th Lateran Council is in Constitution #17 in a list of offences being committed by "Dissolute prelates": "We regretfully relate that not only certain lesser clerics but also some prelates of churches pass almost half the night in unnecessary feasting and forbidden conversation, not to mention other things, and leaving what is left of the night for sleep, they are barely roused at the dawn chorus of the birds and pass away the entire morning in a continuous state of stupor. There are others who celebrate mass barely four times a year and, what is worse, do not bother to attend; if they happen to be present when it is being celebrated, they flee the silence of the choir and pay attention to conversations of the laity outside and so while they attend to talk that is unnecessary for them, they do not give an attentive ear to the things of God. We altogether forbid these and similar things on pain of suspension. We strictly command such persons, in virtue of obedience, to celebrate the divine office, day and night alike, as far as God allows them, with both zeal and devotion." The Reformers would have been familiar with these Councils and yet, as previously noted, approvingly used the exact same language: "Foure times in the yeare we think sufficient to the administration of the Lords Table." Knowing the abuses that arisen with the mass replacing the Lord's Supper (WCF 29, especially 2., for example), it is difficult to extract from the medieval councils what should be retained - and yet the Reformers accomplished that very thing by comparing it to the revealed Word. My original OP was/is an attempt (albeit perhaps clumsily) to do that so perhaps I should restate it: How do our current practices align with the revealed Word (while in no way discounting the wisdom of our forefathers)?
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Freshman
I tried to convey this in the original OP: "not every part of the Earth has the same meteorological seasons or number of meteorological seasons, but they do all have the same astronomical reference points"
Last edited:
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Freshman
These are the questions I was trying to ask in the original OP - you have asked them much better. But I still have to wonder why the Creator created specific time divisions in His creation. The Sabbath was made for man - is this not also true about the other Divinely created divisions of time? Who did He create signs, and seasons, and days, and years for? Why are seasons created and sustained? Does not the fact that the use of mo'edim in Genesis 1:14 was used later to generally refers to religious festivals rather than "seasons" suggest a connection? Is it not likely that mo'edim meant "seasons" but as the ceremonial law was attached to these Divinely created divisions of time the word began to be used in reference to religious festivals? Is defining mo'edim in Genesis 1:14 as referring to religious festivals not a case of reading a later definition of the word back into an earlier text? Is this what we are now doing with Biblical terms like "as often as" or Confessional terms such as "frequently"? In my limited understanding, the generic meaning of mo'edim is generally "appointed time." I believe the latter would hold true in Gen.1 where it is attached to the Hebrew אוֹת which can mean "sign" but also "remembrance." Thus, in the beauty of Hebrew parallelism, couldn't this be taken to mean something like "times throughout the year appointed for remembrance"? And, yes, mo'edim is not used at the end of the Noahic Covenant, but are not the words used ("seed time and harvest, and cold and heat, and Summer and Winter") simply specific references to the plural mo'edim in Genesis 1:14?
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Freshman
I have also always been curious about this: In the WCF 21.5, what does the final phrase ("which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner.") refer to - all of 5., or just the previous phrase ":besides religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon several occasions;"? It might clearer to see this section like this:
The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear;
the sound preaching;
and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God with understanding, faith, and reverence;
singing of psalms with grace in the heart;
as, also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ;
are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God:
besides religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon several occasions;
which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner.
The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear;
the sound preaching;
and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God with understanding, faith, and reverence;
singing of psalms with grace in the heart;
as, also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ;
are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God:
besides religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon several occasions;
which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner.
JH
Puritan Board Sophomore
That's actually a really good point. A lot of people like to cling not only to the language of "frequent" in the Directory, but also that the Supper is an a part of the "ordinary" worship of God.
But anywho, I do think Alexander was right in his post; this thread itself I think proves that we are unable to establish from Scripture a prescribed frequency. Personally, I'm not comfortable with a frequency more than monthly.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Freshman
First, I appreciate your time in responding and for the quality and tone of your engagement. I surmise you were not necessarily looking for answers (more of a "food for thought" type of response?) but I would like to (in bold simply to distinguish my answer from the question) for my own benefit in seeking clarity. I apologize in advance for answering some questions with questions:
Once again we need to ask about hermeneutics: how do we get from God appointing times for Israel's annual festivals to God appointing times for communion? If it is necessary for God's own glory, our salvation, faith, and life, and is not expressly set down in Scripture, isn't it by good and necessary consequence to be deduced from Scripture? It is not enough for the RPW that someone somewhere in the Bible has done the thing we are advocating. Agreed. As I noted in the OP: "I am wary of narrative-based doctrines and note that much of the early apostolic Church’s practices seemed to change." How do we know that this is a proper application? Good and necessary consequence to be deduced from Scripture. If it is apropos, does it argue for communion three times a year, on the 14th of the First (Jewish) month (Easter), seven weeks later (Pentecost), and the middle of the seventh (Jewish) month. When the Assembly stated that "The sacraments of the Old Testament, in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the New" (WCF 27.5), I infer that they are also acknowledging in contrast that the physical things of the Old are not the same as those of the New. If we add Hannukah (Christmas), on what basis do we do that? Some see a fourth season observed by Christ in John 10:22) but we seem to be in agreement above that this is suspect: You: "it is not enough for the RPW that someone somewhere in the Bible has done the thing we are advocating." Me: "Agreed. As I noted in the OP: 'I am wary of narrative-based doctrines and note that much of the early apostolic Church’s practices seemed to change.'" The Deuteronomic bar of “at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established” has always loomed large over my hermeneutics. Why all three festivals and not simply Passover, so that we all celebrate communion at Easter? I am not opposed to this if by good and necessary consequence it can be deduced from Scripture at the mouth of two or three witnesses. How do we reckon with the fact that these festivals were not simply one sabbath long but about a week long? The sabbath is not always a literal day - there is a spiritual Sabbath, and there were sabbaths not on the last day of the week (see, for example, Leviticus 23) Is that your justification for communion seasons? Not necessarily, but it might contribute to "good and necessary consequence." How do you avoid the implication that you have just made an excellent case for Christians celebrating Christmas, Easter and Pentecost? The Dutch Church did this (Church Order of Dort, Articles 63 & 67) as it was seemingly simpler to coopt these "holy days" since they occurred in roughly separate seasons throughout the year. The Scottish Kirk did not: "By the contrary doctrine we understand whatsoever men by lawes, counsells, or constitutions, have imposed upon the consciences of men, without the expressed commandement of Gods word, such as be the... keeping of holy dayes of certaine Saints commanded by man, such as be all those that the Papists have invented, as the feasts (as they terme them) of the Apostles, Martyrs, Virgines, of Christmasse, Circumcision, Epiphanie, Purification, and other fond [foolish] feastes of our Ladie: which things because in Gods Scriptures they neither have commandement nor assurance, we judge them utterly to be abolished from this Realme...." (First Book of Discipline, The explication of the first head.) I believe the latter is wiser because, though theoretically possible to remove the idolatry, blasphemy, and superstitions that have arisen with Christmas, Easter and Pentecost, why bother? This doesn't seem like an argument the Puritans would have eagerly embraced. I'm not sure which argument you are referring to but no need to clarify with enough probably said at this point - I have tried to quote from those I consider the purest of redeemed sinners, and I give deference to documents adopted by the Church than individual, and to the documents of those particular churches which are more pure (WCF 25.4).
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Freshman
Me, too. But what if my session decides to observe the Lord's Supper every week or only once a year? (I believe my session is considering moving from monthly towards the former - thus my OP).
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Freshman
Me, too. But what would you do if your session decided to begin observing the Lord's Supper every week or only once a year? I have gone through this once. I petitioned the session to reconsider. They simply stated it was their call and questioned why I wouldn't want the Lord's Supper every week. I appealed it through presbytery and eventually to the synod level where my appeal was not supported ( https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KUSZI5JsaeG9jXMXopTizTgLiW25zNhB/view pp.137-138 ). That it became a question of constitutional wording and not Biblical exegesis left me unsettled on the issue. As has this OP!
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
Since the previous phrase refers to "upon several occasions", and these are all things that are "extraordinary" acts of religious worship, it seems to me most likely that the final phrase only modified the immediately preceding.
JH
Puritan Board Sophomore
Amen, well I'm glad you actually followed due course. Personally, I think weekly observance creates a lower view of the sacrament for the vast majority of the congregation, as there is less due preparation, and the sermon immediately going before the sacrament is often not at all related to the sacrament itself. There usually is a 5 minute sermonette, and then the Lord's Prayer is corporately recited.Me, too. But what would you do if your session decided to begin observing the Lord's Supper every week or only once a year? I have gone through this once. I petitioned the session to reconsider. They simply stated it was their call and questioned why I wouldn't want the Lord's Supper every week. I appealed it through presbytery and eventually to the synod level where my appeal was not supported ( https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KUSZI5JsaeG9jXMXopTizTgLiW25zNhB/view pp.137-138 ). That it became a question of constitutional wording and not Biblical exegesis left me unsettled on the issue. As has this OP!
In post #20 I gave a 10 part series from pastor McCurley on the Lord's Supper – I would highly recommend for you only the first (2) of those. "The Place for Preparation" and especially "Word and Sacrament".
Later edit: I would also include the last sermon of the series, "Communion Seasons and Revival"
If you have already petitioned your session, but they have decided to move forward already, the best you can do is continue to pray for them, and if the Lord continues to show you more, then share those things with them. Myself, if my session went to weekly observance that wasn't circumstantial, I probably would consider moving to another FCC; but thankfully communion seasons are a cornerstone of the denomination.
Last edited:
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
the short answer is "no" as a brief look at the etymology of mo'edim makes clear: it is related to the verb ya'ad ("to make an appointment"; Am 3:3) and the noun 'edah ("congregation"; Exod 12:3). It means "appointed time" or "appointed (religious) meeting); see BDB. It is the word used in the "Tent of Meeting" If anything, the English translation "seasons" is importing the idea of climatic periods into the Hebrew text. BDB suggests "sacred seasons"; Holladay "times of feast".
That's a lot of inference; you may find it good and necessary, but you probably shouldn't be surprised that not everyone finds it equally compelling. Many of us (from various perspectives) have affirmed the wisdom of the Westminster divines proposal to leave it in the hands of local sessions. That way, those who are convinced of annual communion (perhaps due to similarity to the Passover), or quarterly (like the three annual festivals - or four if you include Hanukkah or Purim), or monthly (like the New Moon festival) , or weekly (due to a perceived similarity to early church practice) can follow their convictions. I just don't think there is a clear Biblical argument that will convince everyone; let each be convinced in his or her own mind.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Freshman
I appreciate that this returns the discussion to the OP and the opening appeal for Biblical exegesis. If this is the meaning of the word in Genesis 1, wouldn't this then suggest the idea that observing Divinely appointed sacraments (such as the coming ceremonial observances and then the Lord's Supper) seasonally is part of the created order? Or at least more so than other Divinely ordained divisions of time? Why else would Genesis 1 be using language such as "sacred seasons" and/or "times of feast"?
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Freshman
I largely agree, but how is this done practically in a congregation (such as mine) where not everyone agrees? How can someone follow their conviction that the Lord's Supper should be celebrated seasonally in a congregation where the session decides to change it to every week or once a year? In a corporate act of worship, people cannot follow their convictions. We do not treat baptism this way (I know of only one denomination - CREC? - that allows people to choose the mode and timing of baptism, but if I recall correctly, this is by congregation, not by individual congregants).
Last edited:
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Freshman
That is how it strikes me at first - until it adds "to be used in an holy and religious manner" at the end. Doesn't this apply to all (both ordinary - LC 154 - and "extraordinary") elements of worship?
Grammatically in the confession it does not. The MS of the Confession places a semi-colon and the two earliest authoritative printings a colon after "Religious Worship of God." In fact, in the MS the entire final section on extraordinary parts of worship is added as an insertion (the assembly Minutes shed no light on the text here). See the text in Dr Carruthers' The Westminster Confession of Faith: being an account of the preparation and printing of its seven leading editions, to which is appended a critical text of the confession (1937), p. and the recent Dr. John R. Bower's critical text of The Confession of Faith (RHB, 2020), pp. 304–305.
- Status