How regularly should we receive the supper?

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by luvroftheWord
My ... nowhere do we have a command to observe the sacrament with a specific frequency. There is no command to do it everytime you come together, or every week, or every month, or whatever. Of course, it's possible that we have some examples of the early church in Acts observing the supper each time they came together, but all that means is that we are permitted to do this if we choose.

But having said that, I think the theology of the sacrament itself should lead us to observe the supper with a certain degree of frequency. I, personally, would like to observe it weekly because I find great joy in it. But depending on how your church observes the sacrament, weekly observance may be a bit too tedious. At St Paul's, we all go forward to receive the sacrament row by row, which takes up considerable amounts of time sometimes. The result is that we observe it monthly.

I agree with those who have said that the Word is primary and the sacrament is secondary. But I think I would still be concerned by less frequent observance than monthly. Is there not a reason to observe the supper other than the fact that Jesus told us to do it?

Craig,
yes, there is a reason.

1Co 11:31 For if we discerned ourselves, we would not be judged.
1Co 11:32 But being judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we not be condemned with the world.

Chastening is good.

Heb 12:5 And you have forgotten the exhortation which He speaks with you, as with sons, "My sons, do not despise the chastening of the Lord, nor faint while being corrected by Him.
Heb 12:6 For whom the Lord loves, He disciplines, and whips every son whom He receives." Prov. 3:11, 12
Heb 12:7 If you endure discipline, God is dealing with you as with sons; for who is the son whom a father does not discipline?
Heb 12:8 But if you are without discipline, of which all have become sharers, then you are bastards, and not sons.
Heb 12:9 Furthermore, indeed we have had fathers of our flesh as correctors, and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits, and we shall live?
Heb 12:10 For they truly disciplined us for a few days according to the thing seeming good to them; but He for our profit, in order for us to partake of His holiness.

It proves that we have a Father and we are His sons!

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by luvroftheWord
My ... nowhere do we have a command to observe the sacrament with a specific frequency. There is no command to do it everytime you come together, or every week, or every month, or whatever. Of course, it's possible that we have some examples of the early church in Acts observing the supper each time they came together, but all that means is that we are permitted to do this if we choose.

But having said that, I think the theology of the sacrament itself should lead us to observe the supper with a certain degree of frequency.

I agree with those who have said that the Word is primary and the sacrament is secondary.

 

[lionovjudah]

Originally posted by luvroftheWord
My ... nowhere do we have a command to observe the sacrament with a specific frequency. There is no command to do it everytime you come together, or every week, or every month, or whatever. Of course, it's possible that we have some examples of the early church in Acts observing the supper each time they came together, but all that means is that we are permitted to do this if we choose.

But having said that, I think the theology of the sacrament itself should lead us to observe the supper with a certain degree of frequency. I, personally, would like to observe it weekly because I find great joy in it. But depending on how your church observes the sacrament, weekly observance may be a bit too tedious. At St Paul's, we all go forward to receive the sacrament row by row, which takes up considerable amounts of time sometimes. The result is that we observe it monthly.

I agree with those who have said that the Word is primary and the sacrament is secondary. But I think I would still be concerned by less frequent observance than monthly. Is there not a reason to observe the supper other than the fact that Jesus told us to do it?

Did the first readers of this account feel the same way?

I doubt they said, "Well the is no COMMAND, so I guess this means we can observe the supper when we want."

The issue is simple. Weekly observance was prescribed in Scripture and the primitive Church, not for legalistic means, but only to celebrate the supper as a community of believers.



Joe

 

[luvroftheWord]

Originally posted by lionovjudah

Originally posted by luvroftheWord
My ... nowhere do we have a command to observe the sacrament with a specific frequency. There is no command to do it everytime you come together, or every week, or every month, or whatever. Of course, it's possible that we have some examples of the early church in Acts observing the supper each time they came together, but all that means is that we are permitted to do this if we choose.

But having said that, I think the theology of the sacrament itself should lead us to observe the supper with a certain degree of frequency. I, personally, would like to observe it weekly because I find great joy in it. But depending on how your church observes the sacrament, weekly observance may be a bit too tedious. At St Paul's, we all go forward to receive the sacrament row by row, which takes up considerable amounts of time sometimes. The result is that we observe it monthly.

I agree with those who have said that the Word is primary and the sacrament is secondary. But I think I would still be concerned by less frequent observance than monthly. Is there not a reason to observe the supper other than the fact that Jesus told us to do it?

Did the first readers of this account feel the same way?

I doubt they said, "Well the is no COMMAND, so I guess this means we can observe the supper when we want."

The issue is simple. Weekly observance was prescribed in Scripture and the primitive Church, not for legalistic means, but only to celebrate the supper as a community of believers.



Joe

But where is weekly observance prescribed, Joe? Where has the Bible told us to do it weekly? All we have are case examples of the apostles and the early church observing the supper (and as Fred has mentioned before, it is debatable as to whether or not the "breaking of bread" in Acts was always a reference to the Lord's Supper). But principles are not built off of case examples. As I said, all the examples in Acts prove (if they are indeed references to the sacrament) is that we are permitted to observe it weekly, not that we are required to.

By the way, Andrew, I like when we agree on stuff.

 

[gwine]

If principles are not built from case examples, then what determines the Sabbath now?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by luvroftheWord
By the way, Andrew, I like when we agree on stuff.

Me too, Craig, me too!

 

[lionovjudah]

Originally posted by luvroftheWord

But where is weekly observance prescribed, Joe? Where has the Bible told us to do it weekly? All we have are case examples of the apostles and the early church observing the supper (and as Fred has mentioned before, it is debatable as to whether or not the "breaking of bread" in Acts was always a reference to the Lord's Supper). But principles are not built off of case examples. As I said, all the examples in Acts prove (if they are indeed references to the sacrament) is that we are permitted to observe it weekly, not that we are required to.

Why would anyone not want to remember the Lord´s death very often. And only partake of the Lord´s supper monthly, quarterly, annually, or not at all. The excuse is given that they do not want to partake of it more often because it will become too common place and loose its meaning. Or it is too tedious for the people to prepare the portion controlled supper, or we cannot properly examine ourselves. But the very opposite is true. The Lord´s Supper loses its meaning when we choose not to partake and think about it. And people would be forced to examine their hearts weekly. This would be like saying that we should only pray two or three times a year, for if we prayed more often then prayer would lose its meaning. This would be absurd. Does the Lord´s death really mean anything to us? But Jesus requested in Luke 22:19, "Do this in remembrance of Me." Do we really care to regularly remember the death of our Lord?

We also read in Acts 2:42 concerning the church at Jerusalem, "And they continued steadfastly in the apostles´ doctrine and fellowship, in breaking of bread and in prayers." Again we see the first century church was steadfast or regular in the breaking of bread which is their observance of the Lord´s Supper. But later men in denominational groups chose to partake of the Lord´s Supper less frequently. Should we be any less regular than the church in the first century? According to what we have seen in the scriptures, we are to both give and partake of the Lord´s Supper every first day of the week. Could the Bible be any clearer concerning the Lord´s Supper?

Jesus said in 1 Corinthians 11:25, "this do in remembrance of Me." The Lord´s Supper helps us remember what the Lord did for us. And as we partake of it as 1 Corinthians 11:26 says, "you proclaim the Lord´s death till He comes". We are showing the world that we believe that Jesus died for our sins.

Let´s not pervert the what the Lord did for us. But as we partake of the Lord´s Supper every first day of the week in spirit and in truth, let us steadfastly "proclaim the Lord´s death till he comes" again.


This sums up the Biblical truth. There is no further discussion that could settle this issue. The Holy Spirit has revealed this truth CLEAR and those who refuse to partake are left with no excuse. No man, creed or confession can change this, but they have. So far I have not heard one good arguement that carries any weight on this subject. Their is absolutley nothing debatable. For some reason celebrating the Lords death until He comes again has been perverted by mans folly. Look at what has been done to this Sacrament.

The heresey of Transubstantiation
The monstosity of consubstantiation as Calvin called it.
Zwinglis symbolic memorial.
Portion controlled Lords Appetizer
Crackers


Look at what men have done to Christ. Unless someone can serve some meat in this debate, for I am not a vegetarian and that is all that has been served thus far by those who say monthly, quarterly, yearly is ok, I am resting in the Witness of the Holy Spirit that has settled this Historically and clearly. Why some things are still debated is beyond me. Once the Truth is clearly revealed, why do we continue?

Infrequent communion, Calvin claimed, was a superstitious horror, "œa most evident contrivance of the devil," and he considered it among the worst of the many abuses of worship in medieval Catholicism. For Calvin, weekly communion was no less important than other reforms he sought, such as the use of the cup by the laity and worship in the language of the vernacular. So Calvin came to the conclusion that "œthe Lord´s Table should have been spread at least once a week for the assembly of Christians, and the promises declared in it should feed us spiritually."


Grace and Peace


Joe

[Edited on 1-26-2005 by lionovjudah]

 

[luvroftheWord]

Originally posted by gwine
If principles are not built from case examples, then what determines the Sabbath now?

The principle of one day in seven has not been revoked by God anywhere in the New Testament. Thus, it continues to be binding.

If you can build principles off of case examples, then you can prove just about anything from the Bible. I could argue that we are supposed to pluck heads of grain for ourselves to eat on the Sabbath. After all, Jesus and his disciples did it.

[Edited on 26-1-2005 by luvroftheWord]

 

[luvroftheWord]

Joe,

I have asked you already and you haven't answered. Where is a principle given? Case examples are not principles. We have a case example of Jesus going up on a mountain to pray and doing so for the whole night (Luke 6:12). Are we required to go up on mountains to pray all night long? I guess if you live in Kansas you're living in sin.

 

[gwine]

Craig,

Forgive me for implying elsewise, but I wasn't talking about the Sabbath itself. We are commanded to keep the Sabbath, but are we commanded to do so on the first day of the week or the seventh day? I thought the conclusion that most make is that it is the first day because this is the pattern the disciples had. Am I wrong to come to this conclusion?

Joe,

I guess I see the same thing with your analogy between the Lord's Supper and prayer. We are commanded to pray without ceasing but where are we commanded to keep the Lord's Supper weekly (or daily?) I would appreciate the biblical reference that shows it as a command.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Joe, it has been stated repeatedly throughout this thread that there is no textual proof that "breaking of bread" refers to the Supper.

Furthermore, all you have done at this point is rhetorically and hypothetically ask, "How could anyone not want to participate weekly?" and from there made the huge jump that we are biblically bound to do so. But you have shown no concrete exegetical evidence of that whatsoever.

As I have said before in this thread, I don't really have a preference for frequency at this time, and at this point the closest thing to my position would be to say that that decision is a liberty given to the elders of a church who know about their own congregation. So I am not against observing it weekly, but you have asserted much more than you have shown (or I believe can show) from Scripture.

 

[luvroftheWord]

Gerry,

I appreciate your question and I'd like to think about it more. But the very, very least that could be said is that because we have examples of the church celebrating it on the first day of the week, that we are permitted to celebrate it on that day. But of course, permission is not the same as obligation. I'll talk to my roommate about it.

 

[lionovjudah]

Craig and Chris.

I have not failed to provide proof. What I posted is from Scripture. Whether you would wonder if breaking of bread meant the supper or not is your fight not mine, not the early church, not the fathers, and not Scripture. If you're asking me where it is commanded in plain words, I need not have to. There is no reason not to partake weekly. All I know is the reasons not to partake weekly are all man made of the devil. The rhetorical questions still stand. I have provided enough evidence for this. Besides me, I will state emphatically the Holy Spirit has clearly presented this truth Historically. Argue with Him, not I.

If you need a "Thou Shalt" to follow the Spirit, you will miss alot of truth.

What orrotates me is why you would not want to remember Christs death? You all continue to come back with the same stale defense, there is no command!!!!!!

Do you question giving every week?

We give every week and we eat every week. This is clear in the Holy Writ.


Craig you stated somethign that really concerns me.

All we have are case examples of the apostles and the early church observing the supper (and as Fred has mentioned before, it is debatable as to whether or not the "breaking of bread" in Acts was always a reference to the Lord's Supper).

Are you sure you mean this? You are saying thats all we have? You will die for the RP or WCF. Fight to death. But you have the freedom to say thats ALL we have is what is written in Scripture and the early church? And fred said it? Well what does that mean? No offense to Fred. But I will not even respond to that. I do nto even know what you mean when you say case examples are not proof? We are talking about the Holy Writ Craig.. The Apostles. Sola Scriptura, you remember that? I have started to repeat myself and may consider to remove myself from this debate.

There is no need to debate what has already been revealed clearly by the Holy Spirit. You should ask yourself why was it changed. Find that for me and I will talk. Dont use the lame reasons you have given so far. Please bring some meat to this debate. Do nto say Scripture is not enough. It was done weekly for centuries. Tell me why it changed. And please do not say the WCF decided. Or Tom Dick ,Harry, Fred, Wilma, Barney. Please I am begging you to tell me why it changed.


Joe

 

[fredtgreco]

Well, fine. Frankly, Joe, I'm tired of you simply saying that Scripture says something, so you have to be right, and ignoring the fact that many, many godly theologians have said the exact opposite. You never give additional Scriptural exegesis, and when you make historical points, you never cite anything, but your say so.

The board doesn't need you simply responding over and over again with "you have to prove it to me" and "I'll repeat my same assertion."

It stops here. Do it again, and I'll be deleting your posts, and processing the revoking of your posting privileges with the Admins. You add nothing to the debate, are contumacious, and it stops now.

 

[lionovjudah]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Well, fine. Frankly, Joe, I'm tired of you simply saying that Scripture says something, so you have to be right, and ignoring the fact that many, many godly theologians have said the exact opposite. You never give additional Scriptural exegesis, and when you make historical points, you never cite anything, but your say so.

The board doesn't need you simply responding over and over again with "you have to prove it to me" and "I'll repeat my same assertion."

It stops here. Do it again, and I'll be deleting your posts, and processing the revoking of your posting privileges with the Admins. You add nothing to the debate, are contumacious, and it stops now.

Ok Fred, if you need extra biblical citations I will post them. WHy not ask Matt how he feels about this? You say I add nothing, well with all due respect sir, all I am doing is parroting the Writ. I find nothing else is needed. If this makes you uncomfortable then I do not know what to say. Who are these Godly theologians? I posted the Scriptures, I posted Calvins thoughts. I will add to this post with many more. My wife called me to put away laundry, so I have to go now.

BTW I do not know what contumacious means. And besides, why does there need to be an exegetical thesis from me on something that other admins in here agree with?

Give me 15 mins and I will have a slew of quotes for you


Joe

 

[lionovjudah]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Well, fine. Frankly, Joe, I'm tired of you simply saying that Scripture says something, so you have to be right, and ignoring the fact that many, many godly theologians have said the exact opposite. You never give additional Scriptural exegesis, and when you make historical points, you never cite anything, but your say so.

The board doesn't need you simply responding over and over again with "you have to prove it to me" and "I'll repeat my same assertion."

It stops here. Do it again, and I'll be deleting your posts, and processing the revoking of your posting privileges with the Admins. You add nothing to the debate, are contumacious, and it stops now.

Here is one Fred:

90AD DIDACHE: "Christian Assembly on the Lord's Day: 1. But every Lord's day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. 2. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. 3. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations." (Didache: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Chapter XIV)

 

[lionovjudah]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Well, fine. Frankly, Joe, I'm tired of you simply saying that Scripture says something, so you have to be right, and ignoring the fact that many, many godly theologians have said the exact opposite. You never give additional Scriptural exegesis, and when you make historical points, you never cite anything, but your say so.

The board doesn't need you simply responding over and over again with "you have to prove it to me" and "I'll repeat my same assertion."

It stops here. Do it again, and I'll be deleting your posts, and processing the revoking of your posting privileges with the Admins. You add nothing to the debate, are contumacious, and it stops now.

More Fred

Cyprian (died 258 A.D.; beheaded for his faith during the bloody persecution of Emperor Valerian; a church leader in Carthage, North Africa) spoke in his writings of the "daily sacrifice" of the Lord's Supper. So also did Ambrose (died 397 A.D.), who was one of the most distinguished of the 4th century Church Fathers, and a leader of the church in Italy. Chrysostom (345-407 A.D.), the most popular and celebrated of the Greek Church Fathers, complained of the small number of people who showed up for the "daily sacrifice" of the Lord's Supper. Augustine (354-430 A.D.; influenced by Ambrose in Milan; became one of the most influential leaders of the Western Church; lived at Hippo, North Africa) indicated that the observance of the Lord's Supper varied from place to place. Early on there was no set pattern; some observed it daily, some weekly, some at other times. Basil (died 379 A.D.; one of the most noted church leaders in Asia Minor) wrote, "We commune four times in the week, on the Lord's Day, the fourth day, the preparation day, and the Sabbath."

 

[gwine]

Why would anyone not want to remember the Lord´s death very often.

What orrotates (sic) me is why you would not want to remember Christs death?

You might as well as why people don't believe the Gospel. Besides the fact that your question is an appeal to emotion you ignore the Scriptures which tell why we don't do so:

1. We are all like sheep that have gone astray and want to do our own thing.

2. Our hearts are desperately wicked.

3. Paul in Romans points out the war within that he had. I know I am nowwhere as sanctified as Paul but we are both sinners deserving God's wrath if not for Christ

There are plenty of other verses that point to the fact that unless God enables us to do so our natural state is to not. You can look them up.

 

[lionovjudah]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Well, fine. Frankly, Joe, I'm tired of you simply saying that Scripture says something, so you have to be right, and ignoring the fact that many, many godly theologians have said the exact opposite. You never give additional Scriptural exegesis, and when you make historical points, you never cite anything, but your say so.

The board doesn't need you simply responding over and over again with "you have to prove it to me" and "I'll repeat my same assertion."

It stops here. Do it again, and I'll be deleting your posts, and processing the revoking of your posting privileges with the Admins. You add nothing to the debate, are contumacious, and it stops now.

ANother

"On the day called Sunday there is a meeting in one place of those who live in cities or the country, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time permits. When the reader has finished, the president in a discourse urges and invites us to the imitation of these noble things. Then we all stand up together and offer prayers. And, as said before, when we have finished the prayer, bread is brought, and wine and water, and the president similarly sends up prayers and thanksgivings to the best of his ability, and the congregation assents, saying the Amen; the distribution, and reception of the consecrated elements by each one takes place and they are sent to the absent by the deacons. Those who prosper, and who so wish, contribute, each one as much as he chooses to. What is collected is deposited with the president, and he takes care of orphans and widows, and those who are in want on account of sickness or any other cause, and those who are in bonds, and the strangers who are sojourners among us, and, briefly, he is the protector of all those in need. We all hold this common gathering on Sunday, since it is the first day, on which God transforming darkness and matter made the universe, and Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead on the same day. For they crucified him on the day before Saturday, and on the day after Saturday, he appeared to his apostles and disciples and taught them these things which I have passed on to you also for your serious consideration" [First Apology of Justin, 67].

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by lionovjudah

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Well, fine. Frankly, Joe, I'm tired of you simply saying that Scripture says something, so you have to be right, and ignoring the fact that many, many godly theologians have said the exact opposite. You never give additional Scriptural exegesis, and when you make historical points, you never cite anything, but your say so.

The board doesn't need you simply responding over and over again with "you have to prove it to me" and "I'll repeat my same assertion."

It stops here. Do it again, and I'll be deleting your posts, and processing the revoking of your posting privileges with the Admins. You add nothing to the debate, are contumacious, and it stops now.

Ok Fred, if you need extra biblical citations I will post them. WHy not ask Matt how he feels about this? You say I add nothing, well with all due respect sir, all I am doing is parroting the Writ. I find nothing else is needed. If this makes you uncomfortable then I do not know what to say. Who are these Godly theologians? I posted the Scriptures, I posted Calvins thoughts. I will add to this post with many more. My wife called me to put away laundry, so I have to go now.

BTW I do not know what contumacious means. And besides, why does there need to be an exegetical thesis from me on something that other admins in here agree with?

Give me 15 mins and I will have a slew of quotes for you

Actually you are not "parroting Holy Writ" and you are not "giving Calvin's thoughts" for Calvin completely disagrees with your interpretation of "breaking of bread" and Acts 2:

As touching prayer and doctrine the sense is plain. Communication or fellowship, and breaking of bread, may be taken diversely. Some think that breaking of bread doth signify the Lord's Supper; other some do think that it signifieth alms; other some that the faithful did banquet together 8 among themselves. Some do think that koinwnia, doth signify the celebrating of the Holy Supper; but I do rather agree to those others who think that the same is meant by the breaking of bread. For koinwnia, unless it have somewhat added unto it, is never found in this sense; therefore, I do rather refer it unto mutual society and fellowship, unto alms, and unto other duties of brotherly fellowship. 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. Yea, he expresseth in this place four marks whereby the true and natural face of the Church may be judged. Do we then seek the true Church of Christ? The image thereof is lively depainted and set forth 9 unto us in this place. And he beginneth with doctrine which is, as it were, the soul of the Church. Neither doth he name all manner of doctrine, but the doctrine of the apostles, that is, that which the Son of God had delivered by their hands. Therefore, wheresoever the pure voice of the gospel doth sound, where men continue in the profession thereof, where they exercise themselves in hearing the same ordinarily that they may profit, without all doubt there is the Church. (Calvin on Acts 2:42)

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. 3 For those which make sumptuous banquets do not eat their meat together so familiarly. (Calvin on Acts 2:46)

Calvin's disciple Knox Knox stated "Four times in the year we think sufficient to the administration of the Lord's Table. This we desire to be distincted, that the superstition of the times may be avoided so far as may be" (1560 Book of Discipline)

Further, at the end of Calvin's life, he was an advocate of quarterly communion:

"On Easter-day..., I gave out the intimation that we were to celebrate the Supper on next Lord's day [Acts 20:6-11 & I Cor. 5:6-8 & 11:20-32].... I announced at the same time that no one would be admitted to the Table of the Lord by me, who had not beforehand presented himself for examination."

"I am well pleased that you have delayed the Holy Supper for another month. For at the present time, you could not administer it -- without neglecting that order which...I earnestly desire to be carefully attended to."

"The Supper was instituted by our Lord for our frequent use.... We have decided and ordered that it should be administered four times a year -- namely at Christmas; Easter; Whitsun; and on the first Sunday of September in Autumn."

Is all this definitive? I have not said so. There are other arguments from Genesis 1 and 8 relating the seasons to partaking of communion as a successor to Passover. This is an issue concerning which there has been much debate; in fact, one could argue that the greatest "man made" invention regarding it was daily/weekly communion that springs from Rome and Constantinople. But of course, just as in the House Church thread, and other threads, you know exactly what the NT Church did. (But then Hippolytus must not have existed) That is what I have objected to. That is what will not be tolerated.

 

[lionovjudah]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by lionovjudah

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Well, fine. Frankly, Joe, I'm tired of you simply saying that Scripture says something, so you have to be right, and ignoring the fact that many, many godly theologians have said the exact opposite. You never give additional Scriptural exegesis, and when you make historical points, you never cite anything, but your say so.

The board doesn't need you simply responding over and over again with "you have to prove it to me" and "I'll repeat my same assertion."

It stops here. Do it again, and I'll be deleting your posts, and processing the revoking of your posting privileges with the Admins. You add nothing to the debate, are contumacious, and it stops now.

Ok Fred, if you need extra biblical citations I will post them. WHy not ask Matt how he feels about this? You say I add nothing, well with all due respect sir, all I am doing is parroting the Writ. I find nothing else is needed. If this makes you uncomfortable then I do not know what to say. Who are these Godly theologians? I posted the Scriptures, I posted Calvins thoughts. I will add to this post with many more. My wife called me to put away laundry, so I have to go now.

BTW I do not know what contumacious means. And besides, why does there need to be an exegetical thesis from me on something that other admins in here agree with?

Give me 15 mins and I will have a slew of quotes for you

Actually you are not "parroting Holy Writ" and you are not "giving Calvin's thoughts" for Calvin completely disagrees with your interpretation of "breaking of bread" and Acts 2:

As touching prayer and doctrine the sense is plain. Communication or fellowship, and breaking of bread, may be taken diversely. Some think that breaking of bread doth signify the Lord's Supper; other some do think that it signifieth alms; other some that the faithful did banquet together 8 among themselves. Some do think that koinwnia, doth signify the celebrating of the Holy Supper; but I do rather agree to those others who think that the same is meant by the breaking of bread. For koinwnia, unless it have somewhat added unto it, is never found in this sense; therefore, I do rather refer it unto mutual society and fellowship, unto alms, and unto other duties of brotherly fellowship. 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. Yea, he expresseth in this place four marks whereby the true and natural face of the Church may be judged. Do we then seek the true Church of Christ? The image thereof is lively depainted and set forth 9 unto us in this place. And he beginneth with doctrine which is, as it were, the soul of the Church. Neither doth he name all manner of doctrine, but the doctrine of the apostles, that is, that which the Son of God had delivered by their hands. Therefore, wheresoever the pure voice of the gospel doth sound, where men continue in the profession thereof, where they exercise themselves in hearing the same ordinarily that they may profit, without all doubt there is the Church. (Calvin on Acts 2:42)

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. 3 For those which make sumptuous banquets do not eat their meat together so familiarly. (Calvin on Acts 2:46)

Calvin's disciple Knox Knox stated "Four times in the year we think sufficient to the administration of the Lord's Table. This we desire to be distincted, that the superstition of the times may be avoided so far as may be" (1560 Book of Discipline)

Further, at the end of Calvin's life, he was an advocate of quarterly communion:

"On Easter-day..., I gave out the intimation that we were to celebrate the Supper on next Lord's day [Acts 20:6-11 & I Cor. 5:6-8 & 11:20-32].... I announced at the same time that no one would be admitted to the Table of the Lord by me, who had not beforehand presented himself for examination."

"I am well pleased that you have delayed the Holy Supper for another month. For at the present time, you could not administer it -- without neglecting that order which...I earnestly desire to be carefully attended to."

"The Supper was instituted by our Lord for our frequent use.... We have decided and ordered that it should be administered four times a year -- namely at Christmas; Easter; Whitsun; and on the first Sunday of September in Autumn."

Is all this definitive? I have not said so. There are other arguments from Genesis 1 and 8 relating the seasons to partaking of communion as a successor to Passover. This is an issue concerning which there has been much debate; in fact, one could argue that the greatest "man made" invention regarding it was daily/weekly communion that springs from Rome and Constantinople. But of course, just as in the House Church thread, and other threads, you know exactly what the NT Church did. (But then Hippolytus must not have existed) That is what I have objected to. That is what will not be tolerated.

Fred: I was going to say I am sorry that Scripture stands alone to this fact of observance, But i am not sorry. For how can my vile sinful heart alone be sorry for what the Spirit confirms? Weekly observance did not start with Rome or Constantinople. What does Genesis 1 and 8 have to do with observing the death of Christ weekly?

I apologize if i ca across arrogant and I repent of that. But enough is enough. It does not matter what Calvin said about breaking the bread, He believed in a weekly observance. Where that last quote you presented came from I dont know. More to follow.

Family devotion time


Joe

 

[fredtgreco]

Every one of those last quotes came from Calvin. The fact is, that they are later expressions of Calvin's view than the weekly view he expressed earlier. That is why, even later in his life when he returned from exile and had greater authority, he established quarterly communion, not weekly. He also advised others to do the same.

Genesis 1 and 8 refer to the "seasons" of festal celebration, and Calvin (and Zwingli, and the other Reformers) used that as a link to the Lord's supper using Acts 20:6, and other Scriptures. The fact is that Calvin's comments (and those of the Assembly) about frequent communion were in contrast to the Popish practice of communion once per year.

The fact is that Scripture does not stand alone to the fact of weekly observance, a reason why almost no Churches in the Reformed vein accept that interpretation. The Scots, Dutch, Swiss, Zwinglians, etc., all rejected weekly communion as a necessary consequence of the Scriptures. Will it make me right if I say that the "Spirit confirms this to me" ? Of course not. That is why your argument to the same effect is ineffectual.

 

[crhoades]

Dr. Francis Nigel Lee wrote a 17 page paper defending seasonal/quarterly communion from scripture history etc. I wouldn't mind to see people interact with it. (sounds eerily similar to what Fred is arguing as well)
Quarterly Communion at Biblical Seasons Annually

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by crhoades
Dr. Francis Nigel Lee wrote a 17 page paper defending seasonal/quarterly communion from scripture history etc. I wouldn't mind to see people interact with it. (sounds eerily similar to what Fred is arguing as well)
Quarterly Communion at Biblical Seasons Annually

Yes. I have the paper. I don't agree completely with all its conclusions, but it certainly is enough to make one think.

Many of the arguments are not original with Lee (and that is a good thing, not a bad thing, in my view)

[Edited on 1/27/2005 by fredtgreco]

 

[luvroftheWord]

Joe,

If you will not accept sound reasoning and are content to commit logical fallacy after logical fallacy, all the while thinking you are justified because you are using the Bible to do so, then whatever. But the foolishness of your argument is evident to all. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. You cannot build a universally binding principle off of a particular case example. I think you know this is true because you avoided my reductio of your position entirely. Tell me, Joe, do you believe that since we have an example of Jesus going up on a mountain to pray for a whole night, that we are therefore morally obligated to do the same?

 

[lionovjudah]

Originally posted by luvroftheWord
Joe,

If you will not accept sound reasoning and are content to commit logical fallacy after logical fallacy, all the while thinking you are justified because you are using the Bible to do so, then whatever. But the foolishness of your argument is evident to all. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. You cannot build a universally binding principle off of a particular case example. I think you know this is true because you avoided my reductio of your position entirely. Tell me, Joe, do you believe that since we have an example of Jesus going up on a mountain to pray for a whole night, that we are therefore morally obligated to do the same?

What is a logical fallacy? Did not Christ say, " Teach them everything I have said and commanded?" There is enough Scriptural evidence that this WAS practiced weekly. I honestly am without words on what else to say. Is nto what we read in Scripture, The primitive Church, the Fathers enough evidence?

As to your question, I hope you are being fascecious. Are we to attempt to walk on water also? What does Scripture INTEND to teach Craig? You know that is a basic rule.


Let me post some thoughts from the Reformed Theological Resource Center.
One of the most significant liturgical practices reintroduced to the Church by the protestant Reformers was their insistence on frequent celebration of the Lord's Supper by the laity. Calvin suggested the Church observe the Lord's Supper whenever the church gathered together for worship. Calvin wrote that this means most Christians would observe the Lord's Supper each week.

The irony is that today, particularly after Vatican II, the Roman Catholic laity are offered and partake of the Lord's Supper as often as they attend a worship service. Congregations of the Reformation churches -- and evangelical churches in general -- typically celebrate the Lord's Supper only a few times a year. In fact, many protestant churches celebrate the Supper so rarely that they approach Luther's low standard of celebration of three or four times a year. Recall that Luther taught that if you received communion only three or four times a year, then you were treading the line of unbelieving neglect.


Calvin makes what seems to me to be a biblically reasonable suggestion: "[W]e ought always to provide that no meeting of the Church is held without the word, prayer, the dispensation of the Supper, and alms." Calvin's suggested rule permits celebration of the Lord's Supper more than once a week. Nonetheless, at the very least Calvin commends that churches should observe the Lord's supper at least weekly, because that is typically as often as they assemble together for worship. This is his explicit suggestion, as can be seen in the quotation from Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, on page 2.


I will argue that this rule -- that as often as the church assembles together for worship, so the Lord's Supper should be celebrated -- is suggested in the Scriptures. Furthermore, that the very earliest Christian churches followed this practice is suggested by early Christian writings describing the typical worship service of the early Church. Although even the earliest extra-biblical writings do not present the Church with conclusive proof of a practice being biblical, they do provide an important witness of a practice being biblical. Finally, I will present a simple theological argument as to why a local church should celebrate communion whenever it gathers together for worship.


Paul writes of Christians coming together "in church" as though that were the same thing as Christians coming together to celebrate the Supper. Look carefully at how Paul describes the same event in 1 Corinthians 11:


v. 17: "you come together"

v. 18: "when you come together in church"

v. 33: "when you come together to eat"

v. 20: "when you meet together it is not to eat the

Lord's supper."

v. 34: "eat at home, so that you may not come together for judgment."


Each description of the purpose for which the Corinthians "come together" refers to the same object -- the gathering together of the church for worship. So close is the identification between coming together for church and celebrating the Lord's Supper, that Paul calls the coming together for worship the coming together "to eat." And he chastizes the church at Corinth, rebuking them because when they do come together, so corrupt is their practice, that "it is not to eat the Lord's Supper." The implication being, of course, that one of the main points of meeting together is, in fact, to eat the Lord's supper: to say one is to mean the other


Each description of the purpose for which the Corinthians "come together" refers to the same object -- the gathering together of the church for worship. So close is the identification between coming together for church and celebrating the Lord's Supper, that Paul calls the coming together for worship the coming together "to eat." And he chastizes the church at Corinth, rebuking them because when they do come together, so corrupt is their practice, that "it is not to eat the Lord's Supper." The implication being, of course, that one of the main points of meeting together is, in fact, to eat the Lord's supper: to say one is to mean the other

Note, then, how Luke describes the purpose of the Sunday meeting: they were "gathered together to break bread." Of course other events were also present -- Paul preached a lengthy sermon at the service. Yet the noted purpose of the church gathering together here is to celebrate the Lord's Supper. Just as Paul used phrases interchangeably in his letter to the Corinthians, so Luke seems to use the same phrases: To say that the Church gathers together on Sunday for a service is to say that the church gathers together to celebrate the Supper.

The same suggestion appears present in earlier passages in Acts, when Luke records the practice in the first days of the Church: "And they were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. ... [A]nd they began selling their property and possessions, and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. And day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart..." (Acts 2.42,45-46).

The earliest Christian sources outside of the New Testament confirm that the Church followed Calvin's rule-of-thumb, and celebrated communion whenever the church gathered together. According to the Didache, a very early text written for Christian instruction probably between 60 and 80 A.D.: "On the Lord's own day gather together and break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure" (ch 14). The Didache also contains a description of how the sacrament should be administered in a worship service.

So, too, the many records of the early worship services of the Church all include the celebration of the Lord's Supper. Again while this is not compelling, it does provide evidence indicating an apostolic practice, and later Christians are obligated at least to consider such testimony. Because the Supper was written into every early liturgy (at least that I know of) it indicates that the early Church followed the practice of celebrating the Eucharist whenever the church assembled to worship God, typically on Sunday. Calvin and Luther recovered the same emphasis in their desire to renew worship along more scriptural lines.

Thus, are Christians supposed to "proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light" (1 Peter 2.9)? That proclamation occurs in the Eucharist (1 Co 11.26). Does the Church come together as Christ's body (Eph 1.23, Col 1.18,24)? We share share in His body by eating the bread (1 Co 10.16).

Do we need to drink the blood of Christ, in which there is life, in order to live eternally (Jn 6.54, Lev 17.11)? We drink Christ's blood in His Supper (1 Co 10.16). Is the Church the creature of a New Covenant (Jer 31.31, Heb 8.8, Heb 9.15)? Jesus introduced the New Covenant at the last Supper (Mt 26.26-29).

Does God discipline the Christian for our own good (Heb 12.10)? God disciplines us in the eucharist (1 Co 11.32). Do we need a sacrifice for sin so that God will pass over our sins (Heb 9.22)? The Eucharist is our Passover feast (1 Co 5.8-9). Does Jesus tell us that if we hear His voice and open the door that He will come in and He will dine with us (Rev 3.20)? Do we not dine with Jesus, in His presence, in eating His Supper (Jn 6.56, cf., Jn 6.58, 1 Co 10.3-4, Dt 14.26).

Are Christians told to assemble together (Heb 10.25)? Paul tells us that the many assemble together in one body because we share one loaf (1 Co 10.17) and drink of one Spirit (1 Co 12.13).

Calvin on Communion


"[T]he sacrament [of the Lord's Supper] might be celebrated in the most becoming manner, if it were dispensed to the Church very frequently, at least once a week. ...


"What we have hitherto said of the sacrament, abundantly shows that it was not instituted to be received once a year and that perfunctorily (as is now commonly the custom); but that all Christians might have it in frequent use, and frequently call to mind the sufferings of Christ, thereby sustaining and confirming their faith: stirring themselves up to sing the praises of God, and proclaim his goodness; cherishing and testifying towards each other that mutual charity, the bond of which they see in the unity of the body of Christ. ... Thus we ought always to provide that no meeting of the Church is held without the word, prayer, the dispensation of the Supper, and alms. ...


"By these enactments, holy men wished to retain and ensure the use of frequent communion, as handed down by the apostles themslves; and which, while it was most salutary to believers, they saw gradually falling into desuetude by the negligence of the people. Of his own age, Augustine testifies: 'The sacrament of the unity of out Lord's body is, in some places, provided daily, and in others at certain intervals, at the Lord's table; and at that table some partake to life, and others to destruction' (August. Tract. 26, in Joann.6). And in the first Epistle to Januarius he says: 'Some communicate daily in the body and blood of the Lord; others receive it on certain days: in some places, not a day intervenes on which it is not offered: in others, it is offered only on the Sabbath and the Lord's day: in others, on the Lord's day only.


"Most assuredly, the custom which prescribes communion once a year is an invention of the devil, by what instrumentality soever it may have been introduced. ... Each week, at least, the table of the Lord ought to have been spread for the company of Christians, and the promises declared on which we might then spiritually feed."


John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, bk IV, ch 17.


Joe