Lord's Supper as a means of evangelism?

[TheOldCourse]

I recently heard a minister, speaking on the Lord's Supper, use 1st Corinthians 11:26 to encourage church members to bring unbelievers to church on days on which the Lord's Supper is administered. He argued that as a visible proclamation of the Gospel it is a helpful means of illustrating and presenting Christ and his benefits to unbelievers who may be present in addition to comforting those who do believe.

This raised, for me, some questions regarding Reformed sacramtentology--specifically that of the Lord's Supper being a confirming rather than a converting ordinance. He was comfortable with the Lord's Supper being a converting ordinance in its exhibition but not in its participation (i.e.: the table should still be fenced). Can we bifurcate the purpose of the ordinance in such a way? Keeping the table fenced avoids some of Gillespie's objections to William Prynne and others who would view it as a converting ordinance for participants, but it seems like some of the objections still hit home. Particularly Gillespie argues (Aaron's Rod Blossoming, Book 3 Ch XIV) that the converting application of Christ in the Word is of a different nature than the confirming application of Christ in the sacrament. He also argues against Prynne who claims that conversions may occur by application of Christ to the eye (in the sacrament) as well as by ear (in the preaching of the Word) which seems to be the very argument being here considered.

What think ye? Is it proper to invite unbelievers to the celebration of the Lord's Supper in hopes that they will be converted? How are we to view it as "shew[ing] the Lord's death till he come" in this sense?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Hi Chris,
I don't know if this answers your question or not but I have no issue with the LS being a means of evangelizing the lost in a secondary sense. The LS is a physical example of the gospel message. In that, a man who walks in off the street, never before having heard the gospel message, could not be saved by watching the distribution itself. Does God use the LS to save some of the elect? The confession doesn't speak of such things; However, since the Lord uses the sacrament of baptism to save some of the elect as He wills, I would guess that the Lord can use this sacrament in the same fashion-but that would be in the lives of people who have already confessed faith in Christ, erroneously. They have heard the message of the gospel many times before. Hearing the actual gospel and seeing it are not one and the same, of course.

 

[timmopussycat]

The Lord can work through any element of a church service to save someone: the Welsh evangelist Howell Harris, one of the most amazing workers for Christ that Protestantism can boast, was converted through an announcement that the Lord's supper would take place on the following week.

 

[Scott Bushey]

The Lord can work through any element of a church service to save someone: the Welsh evangelist Howell Harris, one of the most amazing workers for Christ that Protestantism can boast, was converted through an announcement that the Lord's supper would take place on the following week.

Hi Tim,
If I can interact with your post:

The gospel alone, saves. Regeneration is unconditional and by decree. Conversion however, happens when men are enlightened to the truth of the gospel message and respond to those facts. Prayer, generally does not have that component. A man hearing a prayer of me giving glory to God for God's grace in my life is not the gospel and hence, cannot convert a man. As well, Howell Harris may have his eyes fixated wrongly on the LS as bringing salvation to him. It was the gospel message he had heard preached previously as it related to the gospel, not an 'announcement'. This is also why I made mention to Chris that the LS is a secondary means in the unregenerate.The primary means is as Rom's 10 tells us, 'How can they hear except by the preacher'.

 

[timmopussycat]

Hi Scott:

My apologies; I should have been more precise: as it happens the content of that announcement was the means by which Harris came under conviction, his full conversion came later through "a sight" (mental not visionary) of Christ on the cross. But the case of Harris and the role that the announcement of the Lord's Supper played in his conversion does address the the OP's original point, questioning whether the Lord's supper can be a converting as well as a confirming ordinance.

 

[Jack K]

The gospel is proclaimed in the Supper, and the proclamation of the gospel may lead to conversions. This is not inconsistent with the idea that the Supper is a "confirming ordinance." To see others confirmed in their faith can lead an unbeliever to desire the same faith. I could tell you a few stories about friends who were prodded in part by being fenced out from the Supper to finally bow the knee before Christ.

 

[TheOldCourse]

Thanks for the initial thoughts everyone. As to my original question, I probably wasn't clear as to what I was hoping to get at, but I'm less interested in modern day anecdotes than interaction with historic Reformed sacramentology and especially the 17th centure debates over the nature of the supper which is where the "confirming" vs. "converting" ordinance discussion is based. I thought maybe some of those going through Aaron's Rod Blossoming where there are many relevant passages might comment.

Gillespie and others didn't just argue that it was, positively, a "confirming" ordinance, but that it was not a "converting" ordinance. Men like Prynne, on the other hand, contended that it was both and asserted free admission to the sacrament. Prynne argued that as the Gospel made visible (among other reasons, including anecdotal conversions) it had the same power and nature of the Gospel as in the word preached and thus could convert and should be open to all, even the uncoverted, for that reason.

Now no one except the Federal Vision folk are following Prynne all the way there these days, but, after some time reading Gillespie, I wonder if in cases like the above we are still following some of his basic assumptions. Gillespie doesn't just argue that Prynne is ignoring the curse and warning side of the sacrament, but that he misunderstands the nature of the sacrament. As I recall, he argues that it is not the Gospel made visible broadly as representing all of the various benefits and applications of it including its converting power, but rather narrowly--as representing specifically the benefits of Christ applied to the nourishment and confirmation of the converted. He also flatly denies that conversion may come also by sight as it does by hearing (as argued by Prynne). He cites Martin Bucer who argued that not only should the uncoverted not participate in the sacrament but should not even behold it or be present for it. He doesn't follow Bucer to such lengths, but agrees with his basic contention that all of the graces portrayed in it are intended for the converted. For instance:

Ninthly That ordinance which hath neither a promise of the grace of conversion annexed to it nor any example in the word God of any converted by it is no converting ordinance. But the sacrament of the Lord's supper hath neither a promise of the grace of conversion annexed to it nor is there any example in all the Scripture of any ever converted by it therefore it is no converting ordinance

It is also noteworthy that in the Westminster Standards all of the benefits of the Lord's Supper dicussed are in the partaking by worthy receivers. I don't think we need to follow Bucer and bar unbelievers from the service. It is properly accompanied by the preached Word which is a converting ordinance. I wonder, however, whether we can safely bifurcate the purpose of the ordinance in its presentation and in its participation. Shouldn't the ministerial intent be upon those for whom it is intended by God to benefit? Is it proper to give a special evangelistic (in the converting sense) emphasis to the celebration of the Lord's Supper in distinction from the the times where the Word is preached without the sacrament?

 

[Ryan J. Ross]

Bump.