The Lord's Supper

[Bryan]

The Lord\'s Supper

Due to an event that took place over last weekend I'm looking for information regarding who can administer the Lord's Supper. To be a bit more specific is the can the Lord's Supper only be performed in an "orginized church" by a pastor or can it be performed when a group of Christiains come together for example at a Psuedo-Church group like IVCF.

I'm looking both for the historical Refromed position on this and the Biblical resasons as to why.

Thanks,

Bryan
SDG

[Edited on 11-11-2004 by webmaster]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Westminster Confession of Faith:

Chap. XXVII.IV. There are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.

Proof texts: MAT 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 1CO 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread. 1CO 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. HEB 5:4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

Chap. XXIX.III. The Lord Jesus has, 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; but to none who are not then present in the congregation.

Proof texts: MAT 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. 27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. MAR 14:22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. 23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. 24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. LUK 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. 1CO 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

 

[Bryan]

Heb 5:1 For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.
Heb 5:2 He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is beset with weakness.
Heb 5:3 Because of this he is obligated to offer sacrifice for his own sins just as he does for those of the people.
Heb 5:4 And no one takes this honor for himself, but only when called by God, just as Aaron was.

I'm having problems seeing how this would relate to the question at hand. Please keep in mind here I have yet to really study the Lord's Supper, but is the last verse here not discussing the calling of the High Priests in the OT?

Bryan
SDG

 

[pastorway]

According to 1 Corinthians 11 Paul makes it clear that the Supper was to be observed when the church "came together". That means clearly, as our confessions affirm, that the ordinances are given to the church for administration during meetings for corporate worship and therefore not available to be observed by a group of Christians outside the organised local body.

Phillip

 

[BobVigneault]

I am curious as to whether you guys would consider this scripture to be describing the sacrament of communion- Acts 27:33-38.

We find the formula used during the sacrament, "he took bread, and giving thanks to God in the presence of all he broke it and began to eat."

There is no record as to whether or not Paul ate alone or if others joined in.

I think this is a great communion meditation in that Paul is holding up the broken body of Christ as our assurance even in the face of great danger and shipwreck.

Am I finding a treasure here or am I all wet? Wish I could say more but my wife is calling me to supper.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

This may be of help:

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

Who Administers the Sacraments?
by C. Matthew McMahon

[Edited on 11-11-2004 by webmaster]

 

[pastorway]

In the Acts passage Paul simply blessed his meal, giving God the glory for His provision and pointing all on board to the reality that it is God who gives and sustains life.

The phrase that one took bread, or broke bread, is simply a way of saying that he ate a meal. At times in context it does refer to taking part in teh Lord's Supper, but it does not always refer to Communion but often refers to the simple act of eating.

I cannot find any reference in Scripture to the Lord's Supper after it was instituted by Christ that takes place outside of the corporate worship of the local church.

Phillip

[Edited on 11-11-04 by pastorway]

 

[Bryan]

Thank you for the link. I'm priniting it out right now and will try to read through it when I have some time this week, and then get back with any questions I have.

Bryan
SDG

 

[BobVigneault]

Thank you Phillip for the response. I'm not yet fully convinced that this was not a communion observance but your response is reasonable and in line with the scriptures as usual.

Blessings!

 

[Bryan]

Once again thank you for the link, I read through it this morning. I have two questions now from it and a correction.

Firstly you stated in it:

"Those who appeal to the "œtwo or three gathered in my name" passage in Matthew 16 wrest the text from its context concerning the "œpragmaton" or "œlaw" aspects (where we get pragmatic from)."

I think you mean Matthew 18, not 16.

Now I think you made the case that the historic belief has been that only the ordained may administer. There really is no question there. However I need help flushing out two other points you made.

Firstly, When the Great Commission is given it is given to the Apostles as you pointed out. You then state:

"This has no reference to all Christians inclusively, but does have reference to the extension of those who hold the office of the church. "

Why should we assume it has refrence to all who hold office in the church? Also, realating to this it is stated: "Calvin also states, "œPaul speaks not of himself only but of all pastors, when he says, "œLet a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God" (1 Corinthians 4:1). " I read this in the context of what your discussing in your paper as a belief that the "mysteries of God" is the sacraments, am I right here, and if so why should we assume that it is a refrence to the sacraments?

Secondly, regarding the universal priesthood you write:

"Though Christians are called priests as well as Pastors, there is a distinction. "œAll faithful ministers of the gospel, inasmuch as they are engrafted into Christ and are true believers, may, as all other true Christians, be called priests; but this inasmuch as they are members of Christ, not ministers of the gospel. It respecteth their persons, not their function, or not them as such."[34] There is a distinction then between the sacrifices that the Christian priest brings, and the duty of the Pastors over a particular church. Christian priests have no warrant from the word to impose themselves on the duties that God has ordained for the minister. "

Could you explain, or direct me to a resource, that explains the universal priesthood of Christians? It had seemed logical to me that if the NT Sacraments replaced the OT Sacraments (which I believe they did), and there are no longer any priests who adminsitered those sacraments since every Christian is a priest any Christian could administer the sacraments.

Like I said before, this issue has just come up for me so I am only beginning to look at it from all sides. Thank you for your patience

Bryan
SDG

 

[fredtgreco]

Bryan,

I actually think you need to start approaching the matter from two points:

1. To whom were the sacraments given?

2. What gives the sacraments efficacy?

 

[Bryan]

Looking at Matthew 28:16-19 as well as when Christ institued the Lord's Supper I would say the sacraments were given to the Apostles. As for what gives the Sacraments efficacy I would say when Christ said "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." and then goes on to give the Sacrament to the Apostles it is Christ's authority and the Holy Spirit.

Bryan
SDG

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Bryan
Looking at Matthew 28:16-19 as well as when Christ institued the Lord's Supper I would say the sacraments were given to the Apostles. As for what gives the Sacraments efficacy I would say when Christ said "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." and then goes on to give the Sacrament to the Apostles it is Christ's authority and the Holy Spirit.

Bryan
SDG

Ok. This is a good start. Let's take point one first. The sacraments are given to the Apostles. How? As individuals? Or how are the Apostles related to the Church? And there is another matter - are there any Old Testament sacraments? To whom are they given?

Now let's take the second point. You are correct to point to the Holy Spirit. But let's deal more directly with the recipient of the sacrament (since that relates more directly to your original question). How is the sacrament efficacious to him?
In other words, what makes the sacrament of any value to me? Why is it different than sipping coffee in my breakfast nook?

 

[Bryan]

According to Revelation the Apostles are the foundation of the Bride which is the Church. I believe it is then a safe assumption that when something is given to the Apostles it is given to the church. In the OT there were two Sacraments; Passover and Circumcision. They were administered by the priests to Isreal which by the light of the NT we understand to be the church.

Your second question is making me think a bit more. My initial thought is that the Sacraments are made effective by faith, not a faith in the sacrament itself (since there isn't anything special about bread and wine, or water) but that God will use it as He says He will in His Word. The Sacrament must also be administered as is shown in the Scriptures to be effective.

Bryan
SDG

 

[JohnV]

Think "Covenant", Bryan. That's what Fred's getting at (I think. ) If its a sign of the Covenant of Grace, then it belongs in the organized and formal body of Christ, since it is a formal ministering of sacrament to the Covenant members. Its not a thing that does magic for every one who takes it upon himself to do this. Outside the formal church setting it loses its true significance. Correct me if I'm wrong, Fred.

 

[fredtgreco]

Ok, Bryan, we are really getting somewhere! This is good.

Originally posted by Bryan
According to Revelation the Apostles are the foundation of the Bride which is the Church. I believe it is then a safe assumption that when something is given to the Apostles it is given to the church. In the OT there were two Sacraments; Passover and Circumcision. They were administered by the priests to Isreal which by the light of the NT we understand to be the church.

So my point here, and you seem to agree, is that the sacraments were given to the Church or at least FOR the Church. This is important in answering your question. So when someone asks why they need to be conducted in the Church, the first answer is because that is to whom Christ gave them.

Originally posted by BryanYour second question is making me think a bit more. My initial thought is that the Sacraments are made effective by faith, not a faith in the sacrament itself (since there isn't anything special about bread and wine, or water) but that God will use it as He says He will in His Word. The Sacrament must also be administered as is shown in the Scriptures to be effective.

Now let's think about this. I think again you are on the right track. I think we can agree now that the sacraments don't work magically, like some kid of magic spell. There is more involved with the sacraments than that. Sacraments are effective by faith. I think it is also important to remember that faith is not a magical substance either (contra the Word-Faith people's interpretation of Hebrews 11:1) . It is a gift of God, created in man.

Now here is the next question: what brings about faith in someone? I don't mean God - that is true as a final cause - I mean what does God use to bring about faith in man. This is an important next question.

Sorry we are going slowly, but I think this is important and helpful - and you seem to be tracking with me.

 

[Bryan]

Don't worry about going slowly, I think this is the best way to work though a question!

God uses His word to bring about faith in the hearer of it.

Bryan
SDG

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Bryan
Don't worry about going slowly, I think this is the best way to work though a question!

God uses His word to bring about faith in the hearer of it.

Bryan
SDG

Yes! "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God." (Romans 10:17)

So then the next question is:

Given that the sacraments are made effectual by faith, and that faith is brought about by God through His Word, what is the relationship of the sacraments to the Word of God?

 

[Bryan]

It would seem that the Word is linked with the Sacraments even so far as being part of the Sacrament since that Sacrament would not be effectical without it.

Bryan
SDG

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Bryan
It would seem that the Word is linked with the Sacraments even so far as being part of the Sacrament since that Sacrament would not be effectical without it.

Bryan
SDG

Yes. So we see that the Sacrament is dependent on the Word, and that the Word is NOT likewise dependent. So what implication does this have for conducting the sacrament apart from the preaching of the Word or ministry of the Word?

 

[Bryan]

The Sacrament given apart from preaching of the Word will not be effective.

However this brings up an immidiate question to mind, if I'm jumping the gun here let me know: Must the Word be given at the same time as the Sacrament? The Sacrament is made effective by faith and faith comes from the Word, but if we hear the truth of the Sacrament proclaimed from Scripture and have faith in it, that faith would not disapear and would remain even if the Sacrament is given at a further date without the preaching of the Word would it not?

Bryan
SDG

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by Bryan
The Sacrament given apart from preaching of the Word will not be effective.

However this brings up an immidiate question to mind, if I'm jumping the gun here let me know: Must the Word be given at the same time as the Sacrament? The Sacrament is made effective by faith and faith comes from the Word, but if we hear the truth of the Sacrament proclaimed from Scripture and have faith in it, that faith would not disapear and would remain even if the Sacrament is given at a further date without the preaching of the Word would it not?

Bryan
SDG

Your question is a good one. I don't have the answer but I can refer you to a relevant section of the Westminster Directory for Publick Worship, Of the Celebration of the Communion, or Sacrament of the Lord's Supper:

THE communion, or supper of the Lord, is frequently to be celebrated; but how often, may be considered and determined by the ministers, and other church-governors of each congregation, as they shall find most convenient for the comfort and edification of the people committed to their charge. And, when it shall be administered, we judge it convenient to be done after the morning sermon.

Where this sacrament cannot with convenience be frequently administered, it is requisite that publick warning be given the sabbath-day before the administration thereof: and that either then, or on some day of that week, something concerning that ordinance, and the due preparation thereunto, and participation thereof, be taught; that, by the diligent use of all means sanctified of God to that end, both in publick and private, all my come better prepared to that heavenly feast.

This statement provides guidance as to the mind of the Assembly. It suggests to me that weekly observance of the Supper is good, but not required. In fact, it also suggests that the frequency of administration is a circumstance left to the discretion of each church session.

 

[Bryan]

I'm thinking this through a little bit more in relation to the Great Comission and what direction Fred has been questioning me on, and I think I'm beginning to see things...

Now within the church there are Elders that the Apostles put in place to continue on there specific work of guiding and teaching the church, there were also things that all Christians as part of the church were expected to be involved in. The Sacraments only have scriptural examples of Apostles, Elders and Deacons administering them. It would seem then that giving the sacraments was part of their role in the church. Not having any scriptural examples of lay people giving sacraments we have no reason to assume they did. However discipling was done by all the people.

The Great Commission was given to the Apostles. This is interperated by many to mean that it was given to every Christian, but becasue it was given to the Apostles as we have already discussed in reality it was given to the church (not every indivudal believer) which is a small but important difference. Since the Comission was given to the church I see nothing wrong, at this time, with splitting it up since each person has a different "role to play" in the body. The Church will complete the Comission, not indivudal believers. The role of the Elder is the administer the Sacraments (amoung other things) and the role of the believer is to disciple.

Does that makes sense?

Bryan
SDG

 

[fredtgreco]

Yes. And to whom is discipline given?

What is the highest form of discipline? Excommunication. Does that tell us anything?

 

[Bryan]

I'm not sure what you are getting at with this question. Excommunition is imposed on members of the Church by the Church.

Bryan
SDG

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Bryan
I'm not sure what you are getting at with this question. Excommunition is imposed on members of the Church by the Church.

Bryan
SDG

My point is that how could you possibly conduct discipline when the highest form of discipline is meaningless? Let me parse that out. If you do not need to be a member of the Church or in a church to take communion, then it is impossible to be excommunicated. For the Church only has the authority to bar a person from communing in the Church. They can't possibly go into an Intervarsity meeting and break up such a "communion service." They have no jurisdiction or authority.

 

[Bryan]

Ah, I see the connection there now and I am in agreement with you. The more I have looked into this issue the more I have realized how low a view of the church people have today (and I am guilty of this). As I said I had never looked into the issue of who could administer the Sacraments before but now that was forced to, and have, I can see why it's important for only the church to do so.

I can see the need for groups like Intervarsity; a place for Chrsitians to go and have fellowship and support while in school, I have been a member of them in one form or another for a couple years now. But I have always said that it is not a church and should not be used as one. Unfortinitly many students do use it as a church. Upon much reflection I think that movment away from the local churches is one of the most dangrous trends in Christanity today.

Thanks for all your help on this Fred

Bryan
SDG

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Bryan
Ah, I see the connection there now and I am in agreement with you. The more I have looked into this issue the more I have realized how low a view of the church people have today (and I am guilty of this). As I said I had never looked into the issue of who could administer the Sacraments before but now that was forced to, and have, I can see why it's important for only the church to do so.

I can see the need for groups like Intervarsity; a place for Chrsitians to go and have fellowship and support while in school, I have been a member of them in one form or another for a couple years now. But I have always said that it is not a church and should not be used as one. Unfortinitly many students do use it as a church. Upon much reflection I think that movment away from the local churches is one of the most dangrous trends in Christanity today.

Thanks for all your help on this Fred

Bryan
SDG

Bryan,

I too see no need to say that Christians on a campus should not fellowship together. When I was in law school, I was a member of teh Christian Law Students Society. But the problem is when it becomes a substitute for church. Frankly, I don't blame the students; they often do not know better, and are encouraged to do so by the group's hierarchy (whether explicit or implicit).

If I have (by the grace of God) been any help to you (or others) in this, I am very grateful.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

I appreacite the correction from Matthew 16 to 18. I'll update that.

Firstly, When the Great Commission is given it is given to the Apostles as you pointed out. You then state:

"This has no reference to all Christians inclusively, but does have reference to the extension of those who hold the office of the church. "

Why should we assume it has refrence to all who hold office in the church?

Look like I forgot to check this thread - you guys are way ahead.

Fred was right in directing you to what he did.

The extension of this derrives from apostolic ordination of elders. The apostles (officers int he church) ordained men for the ministry(like when Paul ordained men in every church). Then he wrote 1 Cor. 11 instructing them about the Lord's Supper. So we know that in the local church, unitlt he end of the age, those who have authority given to them as elders are to administer the LS. all who hold the office, until Christ's return, will adminsiter this.