I have clarified already that fathers bring the bread and wine to elders and pastors to be blessed and prayed, then have them ready to be dispensed by fathers during the online worship on the Lord's day so all non-physically attending can partake together. I have never stated that this is initiated by fathers of households without the consent of the ministers of the Word. The only change is that instead of elders moving about in the physical sanctuary dispensing to individual members there are fathers between elders and individual members. Are you telling me that elders physcially have to give to individual members directly to be the right mode of dispensing the bread and wine? If you interpret WCF by the strictest letter, then the minister of the Word (which doesn't include the ruling elders) must dispense to individual members directly. Obviously, that is not how we interpret it and most if not all churches have elders dispensing physical elements of the Lord's Supper.
I am not trying to be hostile, but you use this word "forbidden" very loosely as if WCF's later statements of the method of regulative form of the Lord's Supper overrides prior statements. Before defining how the Lord's Supper should be done, WCF in Chapter 29 Section 1 states "Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein he was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of his body and blood, called the Lord's Supper, to be observed in his church, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of himself in his death". It says that Lord Jesus instituted this to be observed in his church PERIOD. No where in WCF says that if not done in the form of regulative principle, then it is better to not have it at all.
You are forgetting that WCF was written during a culture where bodily assembly of Christians is automatically assumed as a Christendom. WCF is not addressing whether you actually have the Lord's Supper or not, but assumes that all churches will perform the Lord's Supper, then clarify what is regulated in the scripture of this sacrament.
People forgot that before the Reformation, the majority of the Roman Catholics degraded to the point where churches actually did not offer the Lord's Supper to assembled worshippers, but only clergy and nobilities partook while common people just looked on. That's why Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin all took to reform the Lord's Supper. Even Calvin himself in the Institute Chapter 17 states "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". Calvin fought to have it at least once a week, but the Genevan Council denied his requests. He even wrote that future generations will overcome this difficulty. Just to be clear, my church was monthly although I interpret it as being weekly, but I can worship together knowing that God is gracious and forgiving.
Our confessions should be coherent as WCF is coherent. When WCF assumes that churches understake Lord's Supper during the worship, the latter statements do not nullify previous truths it has stated of actually having the Lord's Supper. Remember that presbyterian believe in the spiritual nourishment of the Lord's Supper. By denying or delaying spiritual food to those under Christ because the method of dispensing is not agreeable is like saying the church worship violates the regulative form of worship, so better not to attend or worship at all. Are we sure that we are all understanding WCF correctly or are we not being coherent ourselves?
I am not trying to be combative here, but asking people to read the whole sacrament section of WCF before focusing the "minister of the Word" section.
I am not trying to be hostile, but you use this word "forbidden" very loosely as if WCF's later statements of the method of regulative form of the Lord's Supper overrides prior statements. Before defining how the Lord's Supper should be done, WCF in Chapter 29 Section 1 states "Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein he was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of his body and blood, called the Lord's Supper, to be observed in his church, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of himself in his death". It says that Lord Jesus instituted this to be observed in his church PERIOD. No where in WCF says that if not done in the form of regulative principle, then it is better to not have it at all.
You are forgetting that WCF was written during a culture where bodily assembly of Christians is automatically assumed as a Christendom. WCF is not addressing whether you actually have the Lord's Supper or not, but assumes that all churches will perform the Lord's Supper, then clarify what is regulated in the scripture of this sacrament.
People forgot that before the Reformation, the majority of the Roman Catholics degraded to the point where churches actually did not offer the Lord's Supper to assembled worshippers, but only clergy and nobilities partook while common people just looked on. That's why Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin all took to reform the Lord's Supper. Even Calvin himself in the Institute Chapter 17 states "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". Calvin fought to have it at least once a week, but the Genevan Council denied his requests. He even wrote that future generations will overcome this difficulty. Just to be clear, my church was monthly although I interpret it as being weekly, but I can worship together knowing that God is gracious and forgiving.
Our confessions should be coherent as WCF is coherent. When WCF assumes that churches understake Lord's Supper during the worship, the latter statements do not nullify previous truths it has stated of actually having the Lord's Supper. Remember that presbyterian believe in the spiritual nourishment of the Lord's Supper. By denying or delaying spiritual food to those under Christ because the method of dispensing is not agreeable is like saying the church worship violates the regulative form of worship, so better not to attend or worship at all. Are we sure that we are all understanding WCF correctly or are we not being coherent ourselves?
I am not trying to be combative here, but asking people to read the whole sacrament section of WCF before focusing the "minister of the Word" section.