Women at the Lord's Table

Discussion in 'Federal Vision/New Perspectives' started by jasond49079, Jan 18, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jwithnell

    jwithnell Moderator Staff Member

    When Jesus instituted the Lord's supper, He said: "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of me." From a logical standpoint, it would seem that His direction was given for either those present (which means the practice would have died off after the apostles died) or for all those for whom His body was given, which would be all believers. Certainly Acts and the corrections Paul sends to the churches shows the practice continued into the early church, and indeed, into the next 2000 years. (If I'm all off where the Greek is concerned, please let me know.)

    BTW, I'm a lady and I have no problem examining what we do as a church and why we do it -- and being able to give a reasonable answer to those who might ask.
  2. Prufrock

    Prufrock Arbitrary Moderation

    Lynnie, we of course regard the Passover as a shadow and type: but not a shadow and type of the Supper.
  3. lynnie

    lynnie Puritan Board Graduate

    Pru.....we? :) you mean of the crucifixion but not communion?

    If the supper reminds us of the body and blood, and that body and blood reminded them of the passover lamb and deliverance from bondage back when Jesus said "this is my body and blood", isn't it a case of if a=b and b= c, then a=c? Not trying to argue but I never before heard anybody say the passover wasn't a type and shadow of "Christ our passover sacrificed for us" as applying to communion. Is this semantics or do we have different concept? Thanks.
  4. Prufrock

    Prufrock Arbitrary Moderation

    Lynnie, in order to maintain their high view of the NT sacraments, the Papists held that the Old Testament sacraments simply adumbrated grace, or showed forth that which should be given by the New Testament Sacraments. To them, the OT sacraments conveyed grace "ex opere operantis" (by the faith of the recipient), whereas the NT sacraments gave this same grace "ex opere operato" (by virtue of the thing itself). Against them, the Reformed theologians maintained that both signified Christ and sealed his benefits to the recipient in the same manner (i.e., faith). So the catholics held that the Passover signified the grace to be given through the Supper; whereas the Reformed held that both sacraments signified and sealed Christ and his benefits to the recipients by faith. Does this make sense?
  5. Honor

    Honor de-cool

    ok... I see what you are saying... i'm sorry I got all defensive. I did take it as he was being contentious and when you put it the way you did I can see why he would ask the question. I guess that's why Prov. 26:4 is one of my favorite verses.
    so dude... please accept my apology for wanting to rip your head off.
  6. lynnie

    lynnie Puritan Board Graduate

    So the catholics held that the Passover signified the grace to be given through the Supper; whereas the Reformed held that both sacraments signified and sealed Christ and his benefits to the recipients by faith. Does this make sense?

    sort of.....the catholics say the passover prefigured them eating actual body and real blood. But no, they both point to Christ, so you don't say passover pointed to communion. It points to the sacrificed lamb the way passover pointed to the lamb? They both point to the lamb but not one exactly to the other. And definitely not that wine and unleavened bread equaled the actual body in the mass.

    I get what you are driving at but I'd have to say in light of the doctrine of perspecuity, if somebody just picks up the bible and reads the applicable passages, it seems like the reasonable interpretation is that every time we take communion and remember his death, we do remember the passover lamb indirectly and that type and shadow does have very real meaning for us....we are taken out of death unto life. I'm not as theological as you and I can see the papal error you are tying to avoid, but I don't know that I'd exactly say the type and shadow no longer holds. I would say it does hold, but not in the catholic mass way. At least I thought that was a normal assumption in us not quite TRR PCAer types. Thanks.
  7. Peairtach

    Peairtach Puritan Board Doctor

    This has sometimes been used as an argument against credobaptist insistence on a clear example of paedobaptism in the New Testament.

    The rejoinder from the paedobaptist is that credobaptists don't insist upon a clear example of women partaking of the Lord's Supper in the New Testament.

    Why are the credobaptist's so insistent on the one but not the other?

    {I see now that Scott has made the same point above, which was originally made by Calvin, so it can't be too silly, as credos sometimes say}

    Negatively speaking - as Paul says above - it was only adult males who were required to attend the Passover commemoration yearly in Jerusalem. Which is one reason why Jesus and His disciples didn't have their families with them in the Upper Room.

    Three times in the year shall all your males appear before the Lord God . (Ex 23:17, ESV)

    Remember that the Feast of the Passover wasn't the Passover event itself, but it's commemoration, just as breaking the bread and pouring out the wine at the Lord's Supper isn't Calvary itself.

    That might seem rather obvious but the differences between the Passover, in Egypt, and the Passover, the feast commemorating said event in Egypt, are often overlooked.
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2010
  8. Montanablue

    Montanablue Puritan Board Doctor

    To add to this - Jason, I did not think that you were being contentious, but that the person who asked you the original question was being contentious. If you don't understand something or can't properly defend a practice, of course you should ask for help. :)

    Although, my short (and admittedly snarky) response would have been, "Because they're a separate gender not a separate species."
  9. MarieP

    MarieP Puritan Board Senior

    My computer is messing up this thread, so I didn't mean to hit "Thanks" first of all...it's a bit of a weird question to add a thanks to ;)

    My answer is "Because Jesus died for women too"

    The prerequisite to coming to the Lord's Table is not that one be a man or woman. It's to be a new creature in Christ. (OK, only men and women partake, but hopefully you get what I mean, LOL!)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page