Thank you, Mason, for the clarification and the explanation. I will think on these things. I still feel I must criticize again, however, that the nature of at least part of your argument (mainly the final paragraph) has to do not with the Supper per se, but rather with the deficiencies of the participants. There is nothing inherent to weekly communion that causes people to "come away from the table with no change." There is also nothing inherent to weekly communion that means a church must "tack it on at the end" and "rush." I'm sure this happens, but it can happen in a church that does communion weekly as well as a church that does communion once per year. The fault there lies with the minister, not with the frequency of communion. While these carefully chosen scenarios may serve to illustrate your argument, they are just that—carefully chosen scenarios. And, in the case of my church, it is an absolute caricature. Your second paragraph is worthy of reflection, but your third paragraph has, again, failed to show the logically necessary connection between the problems you describe and the Supper per se.
Lord’s Supper Culminating the Preached Word and/or Worship?
- Thread starter mpb
- Start date
- Status
You can find the biblical references to this and all other WLC questions here. Using the phrase "hard pressed" with reference to the biblical nature of the work of the Westminster Divines is...bold.
Ryan&Amber2013
Puritan Board Senior
Thank you. This confirms my point. As far as I can tell, those Bible references deal nothing with Communion being attached to grace, nor do they lay out the guidelines or instructions in the way question 175 does. I would change my mind if anyone could show me otherwise.
I get it, it's a good system and those are good things, but we just can't treat them as binding, as I don't see the Bible doing such.
Apparently you didn’t read the other questions or their texts, either, especially Q. 162. Brother, if you’re looking for the Bible to say explicitly “sacraments are attached to grace,” or whatever, in so many words, you won’t find it. Biblicism is not a good approach to theology. The conglomerate witness of Scripture shows us that the sacraments—among other things—are means of grace. Otherwise, what are they really for?
I will also note that I find your position on the Confession troubling. To be frank, this attitude wherein we describe ourselves as “confessional” until we find a point of disagreement, at which point we then say, “Well, it’s just a man-made system, anyway,” is not only oxymoronic, but is the reason why, for example, the PCA is in the state that it’s in. It’s not just the sacraments, but also the Sabbath, the days of creation, and now sexual ethics. Saying the Westminster Standards are not infallible is odd to feel that one has to say, because literally nobody argues that they are. However, we cannot say we are “confessional” if we so easily dismiss points of doctrine that not only have been confessed by the Church for centuries, but in this case actually distinguish us from groups like the Anabaptists.
Last edited:
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Maybe different strokes for different folks, but I do, big time.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
For starters, and I realize this isn't the case for everyone, but if one is an officer, it is binding.
The congregation must factor into these discussions, warts and all. These are circumstantial matters determined by wisdom and prudence, not scriptural law. So the spiritual maturity of the church, both locally and more broadly considered, has to be taken into account. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a biblical command for length of sermons, but I think most churches have a good feel on how long sermons should be. This is something not totally indifferent, but it is circumstantial to the preaching of the word and must be ordered by Christian wisdom. In a black stocking Dutch context you can easily preach 60-70 minutes without complaints. I don't think that will go over well for your average OPC.
As for the carefully chosen scenarios, they are not all that hard to find. There may be a few, but it certainly isn't the majority of OPC/URC/PCA types of churches practicing weekly communion that the table is adequately fenced with a common table, loaf, and (we can debate this some other time - cup). Maybe it would be more helpful if I knew your communion practice so as not to misrepresent, but this was pretty common when I was in the OPC. Form of some sort, reading of 1 Cor. 11, brief warning but open communion, and pass the elements often with a hymn being sung while the elements are making the rounds. That is rushed and preventative to the meditative ascent of the mount of the Lord in my mind. The changes between monthly and weekly communion were not that stark, but that is probably because I have a large issue with how Reformed churches have given up the more pure administration of the supper that our forbearers fought for. But I do not see weekly communion lending itself to a more deliberate and pure administration of the supper.
I'll add something here that I meant to say earlier. The fundamental flaw of the push and desire of so great a frequency in my mind is to think that the Lord's supper supplies some sort of grace that we can't find anywhere else. This is Mathison's HUGE flaw. He says we get Christ in a singularly unique way. So if I don't take the Supper weekly, I am somehow missing out on getting Christ in this "singularly unique" way. This leads to a question I have below.
You seem caught up on logical necessity, which I have time and time again tried to distance myself from. I do not see a logical necessity against weekly communion. I see scriptural and wise reasons that pulls me back from so common an occurrence. However, you do seem rather caught up on a logically necessitarian view (since you are holding me to such a standard) of why a more/less frequent observance is better. So what is the benefit that a Church will receive partaking weekly over and against monthly? And if this is the case, why not observe the Lord's supper in both the morning, evening, and prayer meeting services?
Just to reiterate since this bell gets rung quite often over the heads of us "Communion-Season" types. I love the Lord's supper. It is a great means of Grace and I do not feel any closer to Christ than when sitting at the table with my brothers and sisters in Christ. It is a treasure and when experienced you cannot but doubt that the Lord truly was in that place. That is what I am jealous for. I am jealous for the experiential tasting and seeing that Christ is beautiful and he loves me. This is the primary reason I am so passionate about this topic. Revival, warm experimental religion, and holiness are not divorced with the means of grace; they are intricately related. I think if we returned to the attainments of our forbearers in its administration and practice we'd be much for the better.
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
It's worth quoting in full the relevant section of the original Westminster Directory of Publick Worship:
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.
The ignorant and the scandalous are not fit to receive the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.
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 may come better prepared to that heavenly feast.
A couple of points to note:
1) like the catechism, the directory stresses the desirability (but not the absolute necessity) of frequent communion. It is left up to the ministers of the local congregation to determine what "frequent" looks like in their context, though I suspect that they had in mind the desirability of something more than quarterly.
2) The divines were not concerned about a lack of preparation with more frequent communion. In fact, they propose teaching people to prepare for communion is only necessary where you have the undesirable situation of infrequent communion. The logic is simple: if you have weekly communion, then you know to prepare yourself for the Lord's Supper every sabbath. If it is less frequent, you might easily forget that this is a communion Sunday and come unprepared, unless you had specifically been encouraged to prepare.
The Reformed, as opposed to the Zwinglian, position is that there is a special grace attached to the sacraments. They are a sign and a seal of the covenant. As WCF 27.3 puts it:
The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it: 516 but upon the work of the Spirit, 517 and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.
None of this directly tells us how often we should celebrate the Lord's Supper - but the confessional position is that ideally it should be "frequent".
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.
The ignorant and the scandalous are not fit to receive the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.
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 may come better prepared to that heavenly feast.
A couple of points to note:
1) like the catechism, the directory stresses the desirability (but not the absolute necessity) of frequent communion. It is left up to the ministers of the local congregation to determine what "frequent" looks like in their context, though I suspect that they had in mind the desirability of something more than quarterly.
2) The divines were not concerned about a lack of preparation with more frequent communion. In fact, they propose teaching people to prepare for communion is only necessary where you have the undesirable situation of infrequent communion. The logic is simple: if you have weekly communion, then you know to prepare yourself for the Lord's Supper every sabbath. If it is less frequent, you might easily forget that this is a communion Sunday and come unprepared, unless you had specifically been encouraged to prepare.
The Reformed, as opposed to the Zwinglian, position is that there is a special grace attached to the sacraments. They are a sign and a seal of the covenant. As WCF 27.3 puts it:
The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it: 516 but upon the work of the Spirit, 517 and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.
None of this directly tells us how often we should celebrate the Lord's Supper - but the confessional position is that ideally it should be "frequent".
Mason, thanks again for your thoughts. I think the problems with your overall presentation, which I have addressed, are still somewhat prominent. I’m not sure how else to say it. We simply must distinguish between problems with the frequency of the Supper and problems with the participants and ministers administering it. They are just different.
As for Mathison, I haven’t read him, so I can make no comment.
I think your last paragraph betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what I have been arguing. To reiterate, I am not arguing against frequencies less than weekly. I am also not arguing for weekly communion. The only thing I have attempted to argue is that the idea that weekly communion is inherently indicative of a lower view of the Supper is wrong. Since you have seemed to distance yourself from that position, I’m happy to leave this conversation at that.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Those are good, to be sure, but the purpose of the Supper is to sign and seal the benefits of the New Covenant to me. Revival and warm experimental religion might be good, but that's not the point of the Supper. The Supper is God's action to us, not my emotional state to him.
You are pitting the objective against the subjective, when surely the objective and subjective are intertwined. The LC 177 states the LS was given "to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him." If the Lord's supper doesn't effect your soul, something is wrong. I don't know why someone would object to a revived heart within the believer and the believer tasting and seeing that the Lord is good.
Surely it is comforting and assuring to know God's gracious actions toward me.
I have to be honest, that I am a bit dumbfounded that you don't see any connection between the issue of frequency and the spiritual maturity of the congregation. How else is the session supposed to determine what is best?
You stated this earlier: "Personally, I would prefer weekly communion, and I hope my session ends up at that position." Why?
And as far as weekly communion being inherently indicative of a lower view. I did not mean to communicate that, even if my comment was taken like that. I do think there is a general trend amongst the more high church reformed types like Mike Horton, Mathison, etc. who argue explicitly for weekly communion (or greater) to over emphasize the objectivity to the extent of the subjective aspects thus resulting in a lower view of the benefits of the sacrament to the believer. They accuse those like me of being Zwinglian. I think I am dealing with kid gloves in saying that their view places less benefit to the communicant.
Last edited:
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
It does, but if we judge it by how much emotion it conjures up in me, we can run into problems. I'm not an emotional person, so if I take the Lord's Supper and the guy next to me is crying and I am not, did it fail to work?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I'm with Horton and to a lesser degree Mathison. I get spiritual comfort from the Supper, and when I was in churches that did it weekly, I got the subjective aspect from it weekly. But since I wasn't emotional about it, others might think that I failed to appreciate the Supper.
Who said that?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
On a deeper level it is the problem of judging internal emotional experiences. I get spiritual nourishment, to be sure, but how am I to gauge such a subjective experience? On a practical level, I just don't worry about it. That's why it is better to focus on God's action to me rather than my subjective response to him. If the subjective response happens, great. If it doesn't, great.
You did sort of imply it when you said those who take it often have lower views of it.
I don’t really get what you’re critiquing from what I said. I’m not going to compare my experience to the old lady next to me. However, a benefit is to be desired and this benefit has its impact upon my soul. I don’t know why it would be great to have no sense of this benefit.
And yes, I think Mike Horton has a lower view of the Supper than I do. It is often the case that only the objective promises are made, and the subjective assurance experienced is minimized by weekly proponents. You seem even to admit as much. That is totally different from saying the number of tears I shed is in direct proportion to how much grace I got.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Not exactly. I simply don't evaluate God's promise to me based on my subjective emotional state at the time.
And again you’re igniting straw men.
Ryan&Amber2013
Puritan Board Senior
I appreciate your desire to keep the church pure. I believe the confession to be a very righteous and honorable thing, But ultimately I have to be convinced by the Bible in order to dogmatically believe something. I used to feel a sense of shame and guilt for even questioning any of the confession's teaching, but that is very unhealthy, because the confession does say a lot of things that the Bible does not say, so to try to bind that to somebody's conscience is not right. I am not a pastor or deacon, or in a position of authority in the church. I really appreciate the confession, and it is a good system, but I cannot tell somebody that is the only system. But I get it, we as Presbyterians are orderly and formal, and systematic, so we want something that gives us structure.
My point is very simple. In order for me to believe something, I need to think critically through it and examine the evidence. When it comes to communion being a sacrament in which God channels grace in which we are to experience and grow in, I need to at least see that in the bible. That is a pretty big claim, and I do not see the scriptural references in which you told me to look at, as teaching such a claim. If anyone has a good biblical theology or scripture references that would justify this position, I would be more than happy to believe it and embrace it. Just with all things in life, I need to research, I need to be open-minded, I need to think critically, and embrace the truth no matter what it may be.
I am just befuddled as to how anyone—must less a confessional Presbyterian—can consider the sacrament of the Lord's Supper as something which communicates nothing to the recipient. Why do you even take the Lord's Supper, since you seem to benefit nothing spiritually from it? Brother, yours is not a Reformed position. Of course, I recognize this won't bother you, because for you it's "not biblical" anyway. But, if I may humbly say, it should bother you. You are missing out on great blessings.
The Apostle Paul says that the bread and the cup are a κοινωνία, a participation and fellowship in the blood of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16)! What does that blood do except accomplish the grace that has been purchased for us his people? What does this κοινωνία mean? Nothing? Does it do nothing? Surely a participation in the very body and blood of the Savior does something by way of grace! Further, the people of Israel were baptized into Moses, and they drank from the life-giving water from the Rock which Paul says was Christ (1 Cor. 10:1-4)! Yet those in the New Covenant, when they partake of greater sacraments, which signify and seal the very substance of what those under the Old Covenant seen in types and shadows, get nothing? Brother, yours is a troubling position. Berkhof says that in the Lord's Supper is "the grace of an ever closer fellowship with Christ, of spiritual nourishment and quickening, and of an ever increasing assurance of salvation" (Systematic Theology [Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1938], 654). I am sad that you don't seem to receive that when you partake.
Last edited:
Rom
Puritan Board Junior
"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" (1 Corinthians 10:16).
Is not communion with the body and blood of Jesus for your growth in grace?
John 15:5 - "I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing."
Edit: I see that Taylor posted right before me.
The sacraments are not channels, but means. The idea of a channel sounds more Lutheran than Reformed to me, but I won’t press that too hard. The Lord meets his people in his ordinances and when received by the hand of faith they are blessings. And Christ’s promises are also annexed with curses to the unbelieving. That is why there is such strong warning to the one who partakes unworthily in 1 Cor. 11. If there wasn’t a promised blessing in the holy supper, why come at all? It would basically be a net-nothing at best in such a case. I do not think John 6 is talking exclusively about the supper, but surely there is application as the sacraments are visible words. We sensibly feed upon Christ by faith when we hear the word preached and this is further signified and sealed to our souls when we come to the table in faith. I’d recommend picking up this short book. It’s excellent.
Mystery of the Lord's Supper: Sermons by Robert Bruce
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1845500563/ref=cm_sw_r_awdo_navT_a_ATMFS36HR8SAJKZKYENM
Edit: and it looks like I was the third one to post without seeing.
This is good. I think it is important to point out the odd language that our brother is using—things like "channeled" and "attached." Perhaps this is where the confusion is arising. Yes, the sacraments are means of grace.
I do think it’s important because the grace we receive isn’t automatic. Even as those who are believers with the habit of faith, we must come with faith in its act in all of the ordinances of Christ. Many of those in Christ have come to sermons, prayer meetings, and to the table in a state of spiritual slumber and need to be awakened.
Ryan&Amber2013
Puritan Board Senior
Sorry guys. I should have been more clear and thoughtful in my posts. I do believe the Supper is filled with blessings. We commune with Jesus, we see the Gospel, and we grow in relationships with each other through Communion. God uses these means to grow our faith. I read your replies and I do agree with them. I also read through Pipa's section on his study guide through the confession and agree with it. Maybe I was trying to say I don't think there's a magical grace that just happens during the Supper, and that the rigorous method in the confession, though good, isn't binding on us as believers.
I love the supper, but I believe I commune with God in all the elements of worship, and this is through faith. Sorry for my lack of thought and sloppiness. I've had a busy week and I kind of reply when I have a bit of free time. Blessings all!
Fair enough, brother. I do hope I wasn't too hard on you. I didn’t intend to be combative. I guess I was just a little taken aback.
Peace.
Ryan&Amber2013
Puritan Board Senior
No worries at all. I see your posts enough to know you are bold, but have a good heart. Have a good night!
chuckd
Puritan Board Junior
Matt. 26:26-28
26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
- Status
Similar threads
