I would like the input and opinion of my Presbyterian PB brothers

[au5t1n]

One of the practical problems with weekly communion is that when your priest... I mean... pastor

Is this supposed to be an implication that those who practice weekly communion all do so for popish reasons? Many simply view it as consistent with the practice of the church in Scripture, and do not wish to let false groups prevent them from observing what they view as Biblical.

---------- Post added at 08:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 PM ----------

Is it disputed by anyone that the NT church had the Lord's supper each Lord's day and considered it a regular element of the worship service? I understand the practical arguments and the allowance for different frequencies -- that's all well and good. But what I am asking here is whether there is any question what the NT church's practice was.

Yes. I just preached on Acts 2:42ff last Lord's Day. It is not possible to get at what the Church's frequency was from the text. We do not know whether they gathered just for a meal, for the Supper or for a combination, and how frequent that mix was.

That the Lord's Supper is not what is only in view in the text is evident by the fact that the phrase "breaking of bread" that occurs in 2:42 (where it would appear to be a reference to the Supper) also occurs in 2:46, where it is "breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts." The word for "food" ( [FONT=&quot]τροφή[/FONT]) does not ever occur in the context of the Supper.

So the short answer is that while Acts 2 might refer to a daily Lord's Supper, it is far from definitive. It is surprising to me how weekly communion advocates will wrest that as a necessity from the text.

Thank you. I guess I just think it makes sense that the Lord's supper would be an element of the Lord's day worship service along with singing, preaching, etc. From what I know of the early church writings (not that they are normative for us, but they are informative all the same), this was the practice in the post-apostolic period, even if we cannot be 100% sure from the text that it was this way from the apostolic period. I guess in light of the lack of definitive evidence, it's a good thing communion frequency is left to the judgment of the session.

 

[dudley]

My original fear of weekly communion might have been as Austin said "to be an implication that those who practice weekly communion all do so for popish reasons" I am curious however, it appears that about 75 to 80 % of Reformed churches celebrate communion once a month or less and yet the argument often presented for more frequent celebration of the Lords Supper is that we must determine our worship practices on the basis of the Bible. And so if we were to determine that it appears that weekly or more regular than once a month communion was biblical in the early church than how did we move away from that? It also appears that the reformers particularly Calvin advocated weekly communion. My question is how did we as Reformed Protestants move away from weekly and frequent communion?

 

[N. Eshelman]

One of the practical problems with weekly communion is that when your priest... I mean... pastor

Is this supposed to be an implication that those who practice weekly communion all do so for popish reasons? Many simply view it as consistent with the practice of the church in Scripture, and do not wish to let false groups prevent them from observing what they view as Biblical.

Nope. It was a joke. Each session has a right to decided what is best for their congregation (in Presbyterianism). That is the position of the Westminster Assembly. Dutch Reformed people are bound to a quarterly and holy day schedule. No problem with that either.

With that said, My PERSONAL issue with weekly communion is that when friends of mine do not have it they feel like they were really cheated out of something. Isn't preaching of the Word the center of Reformed worship?

Again- go ahead presbyters: Have weekly communion in your congregations. That's fine. As you do it- keep the Word preached at the center.

 

[Peairtach]

We have the Lord's Supper, 3 or 4 times a year. Some Free Church congregations have it once a year and some 12 times a year.

If you wish it more frequently you can visit other congregations when they are having it.

In a real sense we renew Covenant with God in Christ every time we go to Him in repentant prayer and seek cleansing and renewed obedience.

The Lord's Supper is renewal of Covenant in a special sense. I think having it every week might be too frequent, but I might be wrong on that.

Renewing our faith in the covenant, not renewing the covenant itself (making a covenant over and over). Might need clarity in this area when speaking to American Presbyterians. We are dealing with a certain TE (and others who follow him) who holds to the latter tangled up in Federal Vision, rather than the former (Standards view).

This man's view is tied up in the so called "covenant renewal worship".


The former is found in the WLC 171, "Q. 171. How are they that receive the sacrament of the Lord’s supper to prepare themselves before they come unto it? A. They that receive the sacrament of the Lord’s supper are, before they come, to prepare themselves thereunto, by examining themselves of their being in Christ, of their sins and wants;of the truth and measure of their knowledge,faith,repentance; love to God and the brethren, charity to all men, forgiving those that have done them wrong; of their desires after Christ, and of their new obedience; and by renewing the exercise of these graces, by serious meditation, and fervent prayer."

This would in fact be renewing our faith in the covenant.

I agree that the language of "Covenant Renewal" is maybe (very) unhappy, and other language should be used.

 

[au5t1n]

With that said, My PERSONAL issue with weekly communion is that when friends of mine do not have it they feel like they were really cheated out of something. Isn't preaching of the Word the center of Reformed worship?

Thanks for clarifying. I wonder, though, whether we shouldn't feel the same way about missing the Lord's supper as if we missed another element of the worship service. Preaching, being the centerpiece, may not be the best example, but take another element - singing psalms, the prayers, etc. If the Lord's supper was designed to be a weekly element along with these (acknowledging that this would need to be established), why should we necessarily feel better about it being missing than singing psalms? We don't want to Romanize, no doubt, but Christ obviously intended it for our good, and I don't think the existence of error should deter our practice. Abusus non tollet usum, or so they say.

 

[fredtgreco]

With that said, My PERSONAL issue with weekly communion is that when friends of mine do not have it they feel like they were really cheated out of something. Isn't preaching of the Word the center of Reformed worship?

Thanks for clarifying. I wonder, though, whether we shouldn't feel the same way about missing the Lord's supper as if we missed another element of the worship service. Preaching, being the centerpiece, may not be the best example, but take another element - singing psalms, the prayers, etc. If the Lord's supper was designed to be a weekly element along with these (acknowledging that this would need to be established), why should we necessarily feel better about it being missing than singing psalms? We don't want to Romanize, no doubt, but Christ obviously intended it for our good, and I don't think the existence of error should deter our practice. Abusus non tollet usum, or so they say.

Austin,

The irony is that virtually every Reformed congregation that has weekly communion fails your test. When was the last time such a church had the Lord's Supper at BOTH the morning and evening service? Apparently it is not significant enough to do that.

By the way - I had a nice chat with Aaron today; he was with us for worship.

 

[au5t1n]

The irony is that virtually every Reformed congregation that has weekly communion fails your test. When was the last time such a church had the Lord's Supper at BOTH the morning and evening service? Apparently it is not significant enough to do that.

Fair point. Some elements of worship are going to be repetitive by nature, though (e.g. you might sing five songs in a service and only have one sermon) while others will be something that there is no reason to repeat (e.g. the Lord's supper). But I'm glad it is left to the session. I can see the case for spacing it out; I'm just a bit confused when I see false groups used as the primary reason, in many of these discussions, for choosing the frequency of communion (whether it be that we don't want to look like Catholics, FVers, paedocommunionists, you name it). Anyway, thank you for explaining that the exegetical case for weekly observance is not as clear as I thought it was.

By the way - I had a nice chat with Aaron today; he was with us for worship.

Good to hear. What was he there for? Not that one needs an excuse to visit your church, of course.

 

[21st Century Calvinist]

I prefer weekly communion. I used to be terribly opposed to the idea. I think that it is hinted at in Acts. Also, from church history we are fairly certain that the early church practiced weekly communion and John Calvin appears to favor it also. However, it is not a test of orthodoxy. Scripture does not specifically tell us that we are to celebrate the Lord's Supper every Sunday morning. At the Lord's Supper we are being spiritually fed by Christ himself as we by faith partake of the bread and wine. Why then, if it is at all possible, would we not want that?

 

[Willem van Oranje]

One of the practical problems with weekly communion is that when your priest... I mean... pastor

Is this supposed to be an implication that those who practice weekly communion all do so for popish reasons? Many simply view it as consistent with the practice of the church in Scripture, and do not wish to let false groups prevent them from observing what they view as Biblical.

Nope. It was a joke. Each session has a right to decided what is best for their congregation (in Presbyterianism). That is the position of the Westminster Assembly. Dutch Reformed people are bound to a quarterly and holy day schedule. No problem with that either.

With that said, My PERSONAL issue with weekly communion is that when friends of mine do not have it they feel like they were really cheated out of something. Isn't preaching of the Word the center of Reformed worship?

Again- go ahead presbyters: Have weekly communion in your congregations. That's fine. As you do it- keep the Word preached at the center.

Without the word preached (including the words of institution), the sacrament is a mere empty sign. But joined with the word, it is a great comfort and a true means of grace, a God-ordained picture, a visual representation of Christ and the New Covenant which saves us, and a great boone to our assurance. Let us thank God for this. Eucharistomen ton Theon dia auton!