The Lord's Supper - more often than not....

[Weston Stoler]

To note it was much easier to accept the Lord's supper as a means of grace then for infants to be baptized. I think it was because it was obvious that the Lord's supper brought some sort of blessing to the one who took it. I believe it should be more than once a year, if we are to take it seriously. Especially for those who might be sick and cannot partake at that time. At least once a quarter or once a month, I would consider every sunday but I would not be dogmatic about it. Not going further then I see scripture goes.
Slightly

 

[Peairtach]

I'm serious. Baptism/circumcision is once in a life time and Communion/Passover is every year. If more than once per year is better than twice per year, then once per day is better than twice per year. Seems simple to me. The sacrament is either good enough once per year like the OT type, or the more the merrier, and the brother that started this thread should keep wine and bread on hand in case another believer stops by for lunch.

I would agree with you that the OP misses it when he states that the Lord's supper be connected to every time there is fellowship of believers. Instead I believe it should be coupled with the weekly preaching of the Word. See my earlier post in this thread. As for your more is better thought process, again, I would contend that the Lord's supper does convey a special grace to those who rightly receive it. In this sense, why would one not want to receive the sacrament as a means of grace?

---------- Post added at 09:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:08 PM ----------

There should be preparation and self-examination for partaking of the Supper. To have it every time the congregation meets or even once a week, does not allow for this to be thoughtfully done, and smacks of superstitious sacerdotalism.

How so? How is it impossible for someone to prepare and examine themselves on a weekly basis?

I'm not persuaded by the biblical arguments for the requirement for the weekly Lord's Supper.

I suppose I would have to have been in a congregation where it was held weekly, for some time, to assess subjectively how it worked and whether it was a good idea.

It should be held infrequently enough that it does not become routine and cease to be special, but frequently enough, that people are not missing out on its benefits.

 

[Philip]

I'm not persuaded by the biblical arguments for the requirement for the weekly Lord's Supper.

I'm not either---I'm also not persuaded by biblical arguments against it.

It should be held infrequently enough that it does not become routine and cease to be special, but frequently enough, that people are not missing out on its benefits.

This seems to be the gist of the argument against weekly communion. On the other hand, I would say that the LS should be held frequently enough that it becomes a vital part of the life of the church.

 

[Peairtach]

This seems to be the gist of the argument against weekly communion. On the other hand, I would say that the LS should be held frequently enough that it becomes a vital part of the life of the church.

Good point.

 

[Andres]

It should be held infrequently enough that it does not become routine and cease to be special, but frequently enough, that people are not missing out on its benefits.

This seems to be the gist of the argument against weekly communion.

Yes, this is what I hear most often too, but I just don't buy it. Does prayer become too routine? We do that weekly in worship. How about singing of Psalms/hymns? Or perhaps more importantly what about the preaching of the Word? Every church does this at least weekly, but I've never heard anyone argue against it out of fear it might become "routine and cease to be special".
If a church is properly administering the sacrament and the congregation properly understands what the sacrament conveys, I don't see any danger of the Lord's Supper becoming routine any more than preaching might.

 

[dudley]

I'm serious. Baptism/circumcision is once in a life time and Communion/Passover is every year. If more than once per year is better than twice per year, then once per day is better than twice per year. Seems simple to me. The sacrament is either good enough once per year like the OT type, or the more the merrier, and the brother that started this thread should keep wine and bread on hand in case another believer stops by for lunch.

I would agree with you that the OP misses it when he states that the Lord's supper be connected to every time there is fellowship of believers. Instead I believe it should be coupled with the weekly preaching of the Word. See my earlier post in this thread. As for your more is better thought process, again, I would contend that the Lord's supper does convey a special grace to those who rightly receive it. In this sense, why would one not want to receive the sacrament as a means of grace?

---------- Post added at 09:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:08 PM ----------

There should be preparation and self-examination for partaking of the Supper. To have it every time the congregation meets or even once a week, does not allow for this to be thoughtfully done, and smacks of superstitious sacerdotalism.

How so? How is it impossible for someone to prepare and examine themselves on a weekly basis?

I'm not persuaded by the biblical arguments for the requirement for the weekly Lord's Supper.

I suppose I would have to have been in a congregation where it was held weekly, for some time, to assess subjectively how it worked and whether it was a good idea.

It should be held infrequently enough that it does not become routine and cease to be special, but frequently enough, that people are not missing out on its benefits.

Richard I agree with you WHEN YOU SAY “It should be held infrequently enough that it does not become routine and cease to be special, but frequently enough, that people are not missing out on its benefits.” and I said in my post to this thread “In my Presbyterian congregation we have 3 services every Sunday. It is a large congregation. We have communion weekly at the 8 AM service and monthly at the 9:30 and 11 AM service. Those who favor more frequent communion have the option to do so. When I was a Roman catholic I received communion every Sunday. Since becoming a Presbyterian and a Protestant I do not receive every Sunday. Sometimes I attend the Communion service during the month and receive communion more than monthly. I follow my heart and my own feelings as to when I receive but I do receive communion at least once a month at the monthly communion which is the first Sunday of the month at all three services.’ Since becoming a Protestant I receive of my own choice less frequently to remind myself that it is not necessary to receive to be saved. I ALSO POINTED OUT “lest we become to much like the Romanists.” PERHAPS WEKLY COMMUNION WILL TAKE AWAY THE MEANING AS A MEMORIAL AND AS PROTESTANTS WE NEED TO REMEMBER “The sacrament does not give us further sanctification and should be seen only as a memorial done in remembrance of him as He asked. As I already said “Since becoming a Protestant I receive of my own choice less frequently to remind myself that it is not necessary to receive to be saved. I can do nothing myself to save myself.”

 

[au5t1n]

Baptism/circumcision is once in a life time and Communion/Passover is every year.

F.N. Lee uses similar reasoning but argues that the Lord's Supper replaces all the OT feasts, not just Passover, so it should be 3-4 times per year. Not sure if there's any merit to that or not. My church observes it as often as we have our Minister present (every two weeks, usually), and I am content to observe it however often the Session decides, as long as it is observed with proper fencing, administration, and instruction, within the corporate worship service, as it is.

 

[Andres]

The sacrament does not give us further sanctification and should be seen only as a memorial done in remembrance of him as He asked.

This is not the traditionally reformed view of the Lord's Supper. The memorial aspect is only one part of what happens when we receive the sacrament. According to Robert Letham in his book, The Lord's Supper: Eternal Word in Broken Bread, three things happen when the Lord’s Supper takes place:

1. It is a memorial - “Do this in remembrance of me.” This is most commonly noted, but Lords supper should not be limited to this one aspect.

2. It is a proclamation of the gospel – Paul stressed whenever the Supper is held we “proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes” (1 Cor 11:26)
Preaching of the Word brings the gospel to our ears whereas sacraments portray gospel before our eyes.

3. It is a “communion” or “participation” in the body and blood of the Lord (1 Cor 10:16-17) Jesus is received by faith (John 6:41-47)
Jesus is eaten and drunk in the Lord’s Supper (John 6:48-58)

---------- Post added at 07:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:10 PM ----------

Also you might want to review the WCF chapter 29, specifically section 7 which reads,

Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

There is much more to the Lord's Supper than just the memorial aspect.

 

[Philip]

The sacrament does not give us further sanctification and should be seen only as a memorial done in remembrance of him as He asked.

I disagree. In the sacrament, we are brought into the presence of Christ as He is at the right hand of the Father. In it our union with Christ is realized most fully in this life. The sacrament is a means of grace by which God gives us a tangible reminder of His finished work and a glimpse into the Heavenly realms, and a foretaste of the great feast in which we will all one day partake.

(Side note: might there be a case against the EO theology of icons to be made by appropriating the language of icons in reference to the LS?)

 

[dudley]

The sacrament does not give us further sanctification and should be seen only as a memorial done in remembrance of him as He asked.

I disagree. In the sacrament, we are brought into the presence of Christ as He is at the right hand of the Father. In it our union with Christ is realized most fully in this life. The sacrament is a means of grace by which God gives us a tangible reminder of His finished work and a glimpse into the Heavenly realms, and a foretaste of the great feast in which we will all one day partake.

(Side note: might there be a case against the EO theology of icons to be made by appropriating the language of icons in reference to the LS?)

In his short treatise on the Lord’s Supper, John Calvin explained his view that the sacrament is not a sacrifice, but rather a meal in which God nourishes our faith.

If I am asked whether Jesus Christ is physically present in the elements of the Lord’s Supper, as a Presbyterian I would answer, “No.” Presbyterians do not believe that the physical substance of bread and wine are changed into the physical substance of Jesus’ body. The bread and wine remain bread and wine.

However, as a Presbyterian I do believe that this sacrament is more than a memorial feast. In the Lord’s Supper, Christ is very much present. Presbyterians affirm that Jesus is spiritually present. Christ is authentically present as we participate in the holy meal. Christ is genuinely present to us and not just in our memories.

As an ex Roman catholic I am careful to emphasize the Protestant view of the meal as a memorial of Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary once for all and not a sacrifice a new in any way.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

I would contend that the Lord's supper does convey a special grace to those who rightly receive it. In this sense, why would one not want to receive the sacrament as a means of grace?

Please explain what you mean by "the Lord's supper does convey a special grace"? And why.

thanks,

 

[Andres]

I would contend that the Lord's supper does convey a special grace to those who rightly receive it. In this sense, why would one not want to receive the sacrament as a means of grace?

Please explain what you mean by "the Lord's supper does convey a special grace"? And why.

thanks,

Perhaps I chose my words poorly, but I am attempting to say what the WLC says much better.

Q. 161. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered, but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they are instituted.

Q. 168. What is the Lord's supper?
A. The Lord's supper is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine according to the appointment of Jesus Christ, his death is showed forth; and they that worthily communicate feed upon his body and blood, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace; have their union and communion with him confirmed; testify and renew their thankfulness, and engagement to God, and their mutual love and fellowship each with other, as members of the same mystical body.

Q. 170. How do they that worthily communicate in the Lord's supper feed upon the body and blood of Christ therein?
A. As the body and blood of Christ are not corporally or carnally present in, with, or under the bread and wine in the Lord's supper, and yet are spiritually present to the faith of the receiver, no less truly and really than the elements themselves are to their outward senses; so they that worthily communicate in the sacrament of the Lord's supper, do therein feed upon the body and blood of Christ, not after a corporal and carnal, but in a spiritual manner; yet truly and really, while by faith they receive and apply unto themselves Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death.

When I made the above comment it was in response to your previous comment where you said, "I am curious: is this a different blessing in substance than what you should receive from the preached Word? Before you practiced weekly communion you did not have this "great blessing"?" Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but that comment seems to posit that there isn't anything special about the Lord's Supper that can't be obtained by just hearing preaching. I respectfully disagree with that idea.

 

[Peairtach]

The Lord's Supper is more than a remembrance. This was Zwingli's early position.

It is also a means of grace - a virtual sacrificial meal, in symbols, as B.B. Warfield explained.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but that comment seems to posit that there isn't anything special about the Lord's Supper that can't be obtained by just hearing preaching. I respectfully disagree with that idea.

OK. Then you did not chose your words poorly in my opinion given what you wrote above. The catechism questions you quoted do not prove that there is something "special" (still undefined) in the Supper that can be obtained beyond preaching.

1. What does the Catechism mean by "feeding on Christ"?
2. And does one "feed on Christ" through the Word?

The idea you seem to propound is certainly not Biblical, John 6:63:

"It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life."

...nor Reformed. Calvin notes:

"The ancients fell into a gross error by supposing that little children were deprived of eternal life, if they did not dispense to them the eucharist, that is the Lord‘s Supper; for this discourse [John 6] does not relate to the Lord‘s Supper, but to the uninterrupted
communication of the flesh of Christ, which we obtain apart from the use of the Lord’s Supper."

"…daily he [Christ] gives it [His body] when by the word of the gospel he offers it for us to partake, inasmuch as it was
crucified…"

Commentary on John, verse 53. Also compare his statements, p. 157, ―A Short Treatise on Our Lord‘s Supper‖, ―We have already seen that Jesus Christ is the only food by which our souls are nourished; but as it is distributed to us by the word of the
Lord, which he has appointed an instrument for that purpose…‖[emphasis added].

Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.17.5.

(see my thesis here).

 

[Andres]

Thanks for your comments Pastor Mathis. I admittedly have yet to read your thesis, but I shall. I do understand that the Lord's supper is a means of grace, but I also understand that the preaching of the word is also. I also agree that the Lord's supper does not have to be administered weekly; it just so happens to be a preference of mine. I do however see more clearly now where you are coming from and I do recognize now how I may be in error. Thank you for pointing this out to me. However, I do have a question: if the Lord's Supper conveys nothing differently or additionally to the preaching of the Word, then of what purpose is it?

 

[Peairtach]

The Word is the Covenant of Grace in writing.

The sacraments are the signs and seals of the Covenant of Grace.

The Word is ordinarily necessary for salvation. The sacraments aren't. But we shouldn't despise or neglect God's rich provision.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Andrew: What Tallach said.

I'd add that the sacraments are the visible Word. They are for our weakness but convey the same truth through different means.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Therefore, I say, we get no other thing in the sacrament than we had in the word: content thee with this.

But suppose it be so; yet the sacrament is not superfluous. For wouldest thou understand what new thing thou obtainest, what other thing thou gettest? I will tell thee. Suppose thou get that same thing which thou hadst in the word, yet thou gettest that same thing better. What is that better ? Thou obtainest a greater and surer hold of that same thing in the sacrament, than thou hadst by the hearing of the word. That same thing which thou possessedst by the hearing of the word, thou dost possess now more largely; He has larger bounds in thy soul by the receiving of the sacrament, than otherwise He could have by the hearing of the word only. Then, wilt thou ask what new thing we get? I say, we get this new thing: we get Christ better than we did before ; we get the thing which we had, more fully, that is, with a surer apprehension than we had of it before ; we get a greater hold of Christ now. For by the sacrament my faith is nourished, the bounds of my soul are enlarged: and so, whereas I had but a little hold of Christ before, as it were between my finger and my thumb, now I get Him in my whole hand; and still the more that my faith grows, the better hold I get of Christ Jesus. So the sacrament is very necessary, if it were no more but to get Christ better, and to get a closer apprehension of Him, by the Sacrament than we could have before.

Robert Bruce's Sermons on the Sacraments: done into English with a biographical introduction by the Rev. John Laidlaw, pp.63-64
Sermons on the sacrament : done into English : Bruce, Robert : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
first published 1590
Robert Bruce, c.1554-1631 Minister of the Kirk of Scotland

 

[Constantlyreforming]

wow, I went away for a week and come back and see this thread has exploded. I hope you understand that I was not trying to argue with the standards of the Westminster Confession, but rather get a feel for your thoughts regarding why or why not the Lord's supper should or should not be celebrated more or less often.


this is what I am seeing from this thread:
Surely since the Lord's supper is a sacrament, a means of grace, we should not abuse it and take advantage of having it all the time, for fear of making it seem monotonous...correct? Could the same argument be had for preaching, or prayer? seriously....how can we distinguish between the two, as both are commanded.

I will read your treatise on the subject, I assure you. I do wonder, however, how we can state for sure whether Christ meant as often as you come together for worship, or as often as you come together as believers period...

If I gather together for a weekly bible study where we sing psalms, gather in prayer and hear the reading of the Word, what you are saying is that it is NOT permissible to have the Lord's supper during this meeting? Or are you saying that it can be, if there are elders present?

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Hello Beckler,

I cannot spend much time on this issue but please note the following:

1. "as often as" (1 Cor. 11:26) modifies "you eat this bread and drink..." (NKJV). It translates the greek find (although "whenever" is less confusing (see Friberg's lexicon and NIV). Either way it does not say "you eat this bread and drink...often." Also, the typical commentaries I have certainly do no understand the text otherwise.

2. My main argument is not that weekly LS will become "monotonous" (and others have not used such an idea). Although I think given the general weakness and ignorance of many Christians (yes, Reformed too), In my humble opinion, weekly LS would elevate it above the Word for many people. For weightier reasons please see my thesis.

3. As an aside, the phrase "break bread" is used in Luke at the end for a non-LS meal. So, its mere usage in a text (eg. Acts 2) does not necessitate it referring to the LS (see Hendriksen/Kistermacher's commentary on Acts 2).

4. To understand the public nature of the sacraments (as over and against a private fellowship time) I refer you to any classical Puritan work on the sacraments (and Mr. Barnes' reference to the WCF...please read the proof-texts). Try Vine's on the LS. That should be at google books. The long and short is this: do not forget the OT! Using only the NT for church gov't and the sacraments brings only confusion. See the West. divine notes ala Gillispie's notes on church officers, for instance, as the NT fulfillment of OT categories (note how Paul, 1 Cor. 9, equates himself to a priest in a fulfilled sense). The sacraments are given to the church organized as a public institution, not to private Christians as the organic church. Thus the church officers reside over their administration and not private lay people.

Hopefully others will step up and fill in the details for you.

take care for now,