There are many who hold to the Regulative Principle of Worship and yet deny the validaty of weekly communion...(e.g., RPCNA supprt RPW but only have communion 4 times per year)

I see an inconsistency in that position.

The RPW is based on Sola Scriptura...that is good, BUT . . . as in all doctrinal positions it should be based on TOTA SCRIPTURA as well. Basing your position on the scripture alone is good, but basing your position on the scripture alone and the "whole" or all of scripture too is even better.

So the RPW should be based on sola scriptura and tota scriptura.

Tota scriptura and the RPW as it relates to this topic comes into play here:

A study of worship in the whole bible brings one to the conclusion that there is a "heavenly pattern" of worship. In this pattern from Old Testament through New Testament we see things repeated again and again in worship...AND...one of the key elements in this pattern is:

The covenant meal, or peace offering, or partaking of the sacrifice.

When this part of the heavenly pattern of worship is neglected, then worship is NOT complete...for the pattern is consistent in scripture and when we depart from that pattern then we depart from true worship, we are acting contrary to the RPW when doing such things.

Here is some examples of the consistency of this pattern found in scripture where partaking of a "meal" is part of the worship service.
- Worship in eden before the fall. Adam and Eve heard the word of God, responded in faith and obedience and partook of the tree of life (meal).
- Exodus. Israel offers burnt offerings. Moses reads the book of the covenant. People respond in faith. AND Isael partakes of the peace offerings(meal)
- Dedication of the temple. Assembly for worship. Sin is dealt with in burnt offerings. Israel enters God's presence. Singing. Word of God proclaimed. Prayer. Fire consumes the sacrifice and glory fills the temple. Israel partakes of peace offerings (meal)
- Book of Rev. Assembling for worship (ch 4). Sin offering (ch. 5) Entering God's presence (ch 5). Psalm of praise (ch 5). Reading the word of God, prayers, fire consuming sacrifices and glory filling temple, psalm of praise (read the whole book you'll see it all)...and finally, the peace offering or the "meal" wedding supper of the lamb (meal)

A short study of worship in the Torah will also show that a partaking (eating) of the sacrifice was essential for the worship service...
note: the torah was based on the heavenly pattern.
note: the nt book of Revelation is a picture into heaven itself and you see the SAME pattern.

Also: The meal is essential in Christ making the new covenant

The meal is essential to RPW.


note: Peter J. Wallace has a good article on this. He is an OPC pastor...but he does not deal with the RPW or weekly communion only the heavenly pattern itself.

__________________
Shawn Atkins
Member, Parkhill Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Denver, Colorado

Open my eyes Lord, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law. Psalm 119:18

In the RPCNA communion frequency is a matter of liberty. Some RP's do have weekly communion.

__________________
Benjamin P. Glaser
Pittsburgh, PA
Fairmount ARP Church, Sewickley, PA
Candidate Under Care Pittsburgh Theological Seminary & Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary

“If the Church could be aroused to a deeper sense of the glory that awaits her, she would enter with a warmer spirit into the struggles that are before her.”-- J.H. Thornwell

Thank you for the correction. It is the same in the OPC as well.

__________________
Shawn Atkins
Member, Parkhill Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Denver, Colorado

Open my eyes Lord, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law. Psalm 119:18

Now those that do are few in number mind you and all three RP Prof's I have had at RPTS are against weekly communion...

__________________
Benjamin P. Glaser
Pittsburgh, PA
Fairmount ARP Church, Sewickley, PA
Candidate Under Care Pittsburgh Theological Seminary & Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary

“If the Church could be aroused to a deeper sense of the glory that awaits her, she would enter with a warmer spirit into the struggles that are before her.”-- J.H. Thornwell

You may find this thread interesting: http://www.puritanboard.com/f19/reas...-supper-30013/

This topic was debated at much length (6 pages!). I commend Rev. Winzer's (armourbearer) very helpful contributions to your consideration.

__________________
Rev. Adam King
Minister without a call (WPCUS)
Stated Supply: Reformed Presbyterian Church
Sterling, KS

Ok Adam. I thank you for the thread and have read through a lot of it, but I believe I have brought in a sligtly different twist to the arguments..(unless I have missed something, please correct me)...now...where do you stand? ......

__________________
Shawn Atkins
Member, Parkhill Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Denver, Colorado

Open my eyes Lord, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law. Psalm 119:18

There are a number of problems with Rev. Winzer's argument, the major problem is that the same logic he applies against weekly communion could be applied against weekly preaching. In refering to the WLC teaching on preparation for the Supper he writes, "Does the congregation as a whole undertake to engage in this kind of spiritual exercise every week -- not only mature Christians, but the weak also? If not, it ought to be received less regularly rather than less spiritually." Well let us look at the WLC's teaching on preparation for the preached word:

Answer 160: It is required of those that hear the Word preached, that they attend upon it with diligence, preparation, and prayer; examine: What they hear by the Scriptures; receive the truth with faith, love, meekness, and readiness of mind, as the Word of God; meditate, and confer of it; hide it in their hearts, and bring forth the fruit of it in their lives.

Well "Does the congregation as a whole undertake to engage in this kind of spiritual exercise every week -- not only mature Christians, but the weak also? If not, it ought to be received less regularly rather than less spiritually." The answer is obvious!

The NT clearly mandates a weekly communion by example and necessary inference (Acts 20:7).

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

Dear AV, for the record I actually am a fan of weekly communion. However, I'm not sure that you can use Acts 20:7 to prove that believers are bound to weekly communion. What do I mean?

[1] Just because we find believers doing something (in Acts 20:7) it does not mean that we are bound to do the same thing. The descriptive is not necessarily the prescriptive. Paul also shaved his head in Acts ...

[2] The phrase "break bread" (in Acts 20:7) means to eat a meal. This is clear 4 verses later (in v. 11) when they break bread again (to eat). The Jewish way of referring to eating a meal was to "break bread". The host of the meal at the beginning would take piece of bread and break it, and thank God for the food. It is also clear in Acts 27:35 where believers and unbelievers engage in the breaking of bread.

I don't think Scripture prescribes how often we should have communion exactly. We must work with theological principles that arise from the purpose of the Lord's Supper.

Where Scripture isn't explicit we move into the real of wisdom. (Let me recommend Payne and Jensen, Guidance and the Voice of God on this point).

Blessings dear bro.

Marty.

__________________
Marty

"There is nothing so necessary to draw us to repentance as good thoughts of God." (Thomas Manton)

Thanks for your input Marty,

In Acts 2:42 the phrase "breaking of bread" clearly means the celebration of the Lord's Supper by the context. Indeed, the Syriac version renders it as "of the eucharist". Later in that same chapter the phrase "breaking bread" comes up but this time the context is less clear as to whether it is refering to the Lord's Supper or whether it is refering to common meals. But then we also know that it was common practice of the early Christians to have a common meal and then celebrate the Lord's Supper at its end, a practice Paul ends in 1 Corinthians 11.

In Acts 20:7 the Syriac version renders it, "to break the eucharist" and the Arabic version renders it, "to distribute the body of Christ". Further, the timing of this meal was not a general meal but we are told it took place "upon the first day of the week" which is when the Christians came together to worship God.

I therefore find your argument that Acts 20:7 does not provide an example commending weekly communion less than convincing.

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

Thanks for pointing out the inconsistencies of Presbyterian traditionalism Richard. I have asked many Presbyterians (and remember I am a Presbyterian) to open the Bible and show me how the practice of bi-annual communion (or less) can possibly be Biblical. Needless to say I am still waiting.

It is also strange that so many Presbyterians criticize others for having "holy days", yet what exactly are their communion "seasons". Surely the idea of having a special season to observe the sacrament is every bit as unbiblical, and a violation of the RPW, as man-made holy days?

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

I did contemplating pointing that out but thought better of it. But I am glad that I am not the only one who sees the "communion seasons" to be on thin ice somewhat.

I have celebrated the Lord's supper weekly since Sept 2004 (bear in mind I was converted in Dec 2003) and I couldn't express how much my spiritual life has been helped by this.

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

I agree...

That is why we need more then just the example of NT believers. We need to ask "why" did they break bread weekly.

imo, the answer to that is "the heavenly pattern of worship". The NT church did not "envent" partaking of the sacrifice and fellowship meal. That was given by God from heaven. The pattern throughout scripture is consistent. Worship involves a peace meal, partaking in the sacrificial meal.

Whenever we worship then, we must follow the SAME pattern. That is the real RPW, following the pattern that God gave from heaven. If we fail to follow that pattern, have we failed to worship God according to the RPW?

Again...we don't do it because NT believers did it...rather they did it because it was given to them to do, and us too.

eg. It is like household baptism. The Apostles did not invent household baptism. We do not baptize households just because believers in the book of Acts did. Rather, they were following the commandment of God, they were following the pattern that was given from heaven when God commanded the covenant sign be given to Abram and his whole household. The apostles were simply following that same tradition given from heaven to Abram.

We don't do what the apostles did just because they did it...or like John said "Paul shaved his head"...should we follow that example as well?

__________________
Shawn Atkins
Member, Parkhill Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Denver, Colorado

Open my eyes Lord, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law. Psalm 119:18

Dear AV,

The clearest evidence of a (perhaps) weekly celebration of the Lord's SUpper is 1 Cor. 11:20. However, we're not explicitly told that this was a weekly gathering, only that when they came together they had the Lord's Supper (it's highly likely there were smaller gatherings outside this one).

But 1 Cor. 11:20 shows that the Lord's Supper was regular--none of this once, twice, or four times a year.

I'm not sure that reasoning works:

[1] The Syriac (and Arabic) renderings (as you know) are not inspired Scripture, but the later translations. They aren't necessarily going to be a reliable indication of the meaning of the phrase. The meaning of the phrase is be found in its usage at the time rather than in later translations. Later translations tell us what later people thought. It is clear from later in Acts that "breaking bread" was fundamentally a meal. So we need good evidence against this in Acts 2.

[2] Meaning lies in the direct context, and there's nothing in the direct context to suggest it was the Lord's Supper.

[3] Maybe "breaking bread" (in Acts 2) was a communal meal that perhaps at some point included the Lord's Supper. However, there's no way we can say that for certain. We can't just appeal to 1 Cor. for this, because the Gentile mission hadn't begun yet (and we can't assume that the ritual was identical).

[4] Moreover, to make the same point again, why is Acts 2:42 a blueprint for church life? It tells us what happened, it doesn't say this is what we must do. The Christians in the early chapters of Acts still used rites from the Torah, but that doesn't mean we should do the same. Remember: descriptive is not necessarily prescriptive.

In other words the evidence is just too slim to build an argument from Acts 2.

And this shows how wrong the Syriac and Arabic translators were. The direct context (of Acts 20:7) is crystal clear that it was a meal. It may've included the Lord's Supper but there's no way we can prove that. So we can't assume it. We need other evidence.

Sorry to be a pain here, but you're again bringing assumptions to the text. We must be careful to see what it actually says:

[1] Acts 20:7 as well as the rest of the NT nowhere says that believers gathered to "worship God". That's a phrase that gets perpetuated from generation to generation but it doesn't come from Scripture. The purpose of the NT gathering was edification (1 Cor. 14:26; Heb. 10:24-25).

[2] Just because believers met (in Acts 20:7) on the "first day" of the week (and it's very likely that believers couldn't take that day off, especially the slaves, hence that's why they met at sunrise, or after work), it doesn't necessarily bind believers to do the same now. Hermeneutics is critical here.

NT narrative must be read and interpreted carefully.

God bless AV.

__________________
Marty

"There is nothing so necessary to draw us to repentance as good thoughts of God." (Thomas Manton)

Marty,

What do you make of Acts 2:42 saying . . . "breaking of the bread," as the article is used, while in 2:46 the noun is anarthrous?

__________________
Rev. Daniel R. Hyde
Pastor, Oceanside United Reformed Church, Carlsbad/Oceanside, California
Th.M. candidate, Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary

At best it may indicate that the Lord's Supper was included with a meal. However, the article may well indicate it was simply a set meal for believers rather than a more general meal (so Acts 27). In other words, the evidence is too slim to make a case for the Eucharist. We need something more concrete.

__________________
Marty

"There is nothing so necessary to draw us to repentance as good thoughts of God." (Thomas Manton)

Yes. It also proves too much. Acts 2:42 would actually argue for daily communion, rather than weekly communion.

I wonder if a simple series of questions would help:

Would you consider a church a real church if they did not have weekly communion? Would you consider a church a true church if they did not have weekly preaching (say once a month, or once a quarter)? What is the difference? Does that tell us something about the nature of the Lord's Supper?

__________________
Fredrick T. Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
Christ Church Blog

"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

Thanks for pointing out the inconsistencies of Presbyterian traditionalism Richard. I have asked many Presbyterians (and remember I am a Presbyterian) to open the Bible and show me how the practice of bi-annual communion (or less) can possibly be Biblical. Needless to say I am still waiting.

It is also strange that so many Presbyterians criticize others for having "holy days", yet what exactly are their communion "seasons". Surely the idea of having a special season to observe the sacrament is every bit as unbiblical, and a violation of the RPW, as man-made holy days?[/quote]


I think I have entered the twilight zone when I find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with Daniel!
My background is the Free Church of Scotland and the congregation I was a member of had communion twice yearly. We had the usual round of preparatory services. Now, in one sense it was a wonderful time of teaching and fellowship. The congregation excel at having fellowship time . But there was no biblical warrant for the practice. They were holy days by another name.

This is slightly but do you think the reason for the continuing infrequency of communion has to do with many Presbyterains taking a memorial only view of the Supper?

__________________
Donnie MacLeod
Crossroads Presbyterian Fellowship (PCA), Maplewood, MO
MDiv Student Covenant Theological Seminary

You filled my heart with greater joy
than others may have found
As they rejoiced at harvest time,
when grain and wine abound.Ps 4:7, Sing Psalms 2003

Your spot on about communion seasons being "holy days by another name".

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

How would that provide for daily communion? (As the Papists and Episcopalians do?)

__________________
Benjamin P. Glaser
Pittsburgh, PA
Fairmount ARP Church, Sewickley, PA
Candidate Under Care Pittsburgh Theological Seminary & Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary

“If the Church could be aroused to a deeper sense of the glory that awaits her, she would enter with a warmer spirit into the struggles that are before her.”-- J.H. Thornwell

Hi Fred,
I don't think you are right here. Not least because, as I noted above, there is a difference between the "breaking of bread" in verse 42 is the Lord's supper whereas in verse 46 the "breaking bread" is likely a common meal. That is, they are not refering to the same thing.

There is also the issue of whether the term "daily" in verse 46 is to mean "every day" or whether it is refering to "every day that they met".

There is also the issue that even if you are correct that verse 46 is referring to the Lord's supper and daily means "every day" Luke tells us later in Acts that the practice changed to it being celebrated weekly. The RPW would then mean that we take the latest practice as being prescriptive, i.e. the latter trumps the former.

So, I would suggest that your argument has a number of creases that need to be ironed out.

Calvin notes that verse 42 is the Lord's Supper whilst verse 46 is a common meal:
Verse 42: "And my reason why I would rather have breaking of bread to be understood of the Lord’s Supper in this place is this, because Luke doth reckon up those things wherein the public estate of the Church is contained."

Verse 46: "Breaking bread from house to house. Luke signifieth unto us, that they did not only show some token of true godliness publicly, but that the course and tenor of their private life was alone in that respect. For whereas some do think that in this place, by breaking of bread is meant the Holy Supper, it seemeth to me that Luke meant no such thing. He signifieth, therefore, unto us, that they used to eat together, and that thriftily."

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

Dear AV,