The Lord's Supper: Frequency or Intensity?

[MW]

But I find it interesting that in one breath you say it was not the Lord's Supper and in another say it was "uniquely" for the Supper. I will, however, give you the benefit of the doubt and say you are simply arguing your point from both sides.

At no point did I say that the Supper was not intended by breaking of bread in Acts 20. You must be confusing two different points of the discussion.

And again as I began this discussion, though I DO believe the Lord's Supper was celebrated weekly. What I see in scripture indicates to me that the Supper was celebrated weekly (or more often in some cases if you see some particulars in 1 Cor. that way). And I also believe we have testimony from history that the early church celebrated the Supper weekly.

Then we can agree that the texts of Scripture indicate weekly communion to one who is already predisposed towards weekly communion; but it cannot be established by impartial interpretation of the text of holy Scripure that weekly communuion was practised in the apostolic church.

 

[Staphlobob]

Then we can agree that the texts of Scripture indicate weekly communion to one who is already predisposed towards weekly communion; but it cannot be established by impartial interpretation of the text of holy Scripure that weekly communuion was practised in the apostolic church.

Given the evidence of both 1 Corinthians and Acts 20 (and especially the former), I take it in exactly the opposite sense.

 

[Quickened]

Our church has practiced weekly communion for years. I believe we see this as the example of the apostolic church, but not a requirement. However, there are many things we see in the NT by way of example (the love feast, selling possessions and having all things in common, etc.) that are not necessarily "patterns" for us to follow.

In the past I would make the argument that "the nature of the Supper determines its frequency." However that argument was made when I held much stronger to "covenant renewal worship." In that light the "covenant meal" came naturally after we had "renewed our covenant vows" in our "covenant worship." (seeing a pattern here?)

I would be interested in the practice of your churches (and your preferences if they differ). Also, what weight would you give to the idea of "intensity" over "frequency" in regards to the Supper?

BTW, I do not intend by the title to this post to set up a false dichotomy. I certainly understand that it is possible to have both frequency and intensity in the sacrament. However, these are the labels often used by those who do not observe weekly communion. In our ministry we work hard to ensure the Supper isn't simply "tacked on the end."

Can you define "intensity" from a biblical and/or confessional perspective?

 

[Reformed Christian]

Can you define "intensity" from a biblical and/or confessional perspective?

Since "intensity" is not a term that I use personally, but one that I have heard many who advocate a less frequent observance use, I cannot speak for them as to the "confessional usage." That's actually part of my question - to determine what exactly is meant by "intensity" that is somehow greater - at least in their thinking - than what is experienced (if that is at least in part what is implied) by those who celebrate weekly (or at least "more frequently").

As has been pointed out in other posts, the Scottish Presbyterians would have their "seasons of Communion," which Whitefield remarked several times in his Journals as being such a time as he had never experienced. I believe those would be "examples" of what people mean by "intensity," but I'm not quite certain.

I would be interested in the reasons a church would NOT celebrate the Supper weekly. Are there practical issues such as "tradition" that would cause an uproar the church? Would it not be profitable to avail ourselves of a means of grace God had given for our salvation? Are we afraid of it becoming "common" by celebrating it weekly?

For those of you who are in a position to administer the sacrament, if you had your "druthers" - would you celebrate it weekly? Why or why not?

 

[KMK]

Since "intensity" is not a term that I use personally, but one that I have heard many who advocate a less frequent observance use, I cannot speak for them as to the "confessional usage." That's actually part of my question - to determine what exactly is meant by "intensity" that is somehow greater - at least in their thinking - than what is experienced (if that is at least in part what is implied) by those who celebrate weekly (or at least "more frequently").

I would be interested in the reasons a church would NOT celebrate the Supper weekly. Are there practical issues such as "tradition" that would cause an uproar the church? Would it not be profitable to avail ourselves of a means of grace God had given for our salvation? Are we afraid of it becoming "common" by celebrating it weekly?

This thread has a great discussion on this topic: http://www.puritanboard.com/f19/reasons-denying-his-sheep-lords-supper-30013/

In the above thread, Rev Winzer makes this wise point (with which I agree):

There are a variety of reasons. One major reason is what the Lord's supper requires so far as spiritual exercise is concerned. Consider the Larger Catechism.

Answer 171: 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.

Answer 174: It is required of them that receive the sacrament of the Lord's supper, that, during the time of the administration of it, with all holy reverence and attention they wait upon God in that ordinance, diligently observe the sacramental elements and actions, heedfully discern the Lord's body, and affectionately meditate on his death and sufferings, and thereby stir up themselves to a vigorous exercise of their graces; in judging themselves, and sorrowing for sin; in earnest hungering and thirsting after Christ, feeding on him by faith, receiving of his fullness, trusting in his merits, rejoicing in his love, giving thanks for his grace; in renewing of their covenant with God, and love to all the saints.

Answer: 175: The duty of Christians, after they have received the sacrament of the Lord's supper, is seriously to consider how they have behaved themselves therein, and with what success; if they find quickening and comfort, to bless God for it, beg the continuance of it, watch against relapses, fulfill their vows, and encourage themselves to a frequent attendance on that ordinance: but if they find no present benefit, more exactly to review their preparation to, and carriage at, the sacrament; in both which, if they can approve themselves to God and their own consciences, they are to wait for the fruit of it in due time: but, if they see they have failed in either, they are to be humbled, and to attend upon it afterwards with more care and diligence.

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.

This may answer the question as to the meaning of 'intensity': taking seriously what the WS have to say about partaking of the Lord's Supper.

 

[Reformed Christian]

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.

This may answer the question as to the meaning of 'intensity': taking seriously what the WS have to say about partaking of the Lord's Supper.

If I am not mistaken I read another thread from quite some time back discussing weekly communion. In it someone asked the question regarding each of the quotes from the LC, "do these same things not apply to the preaching of the Word of God!" For example, should we not when coming to the preaching of the Word:

• prepare ourselves (by the same means outlined)?
• with holy reverence wait upon him?
• stir up ourselves to a vigerous exercise of graces?
• come hungering and thristing after Christ?

And after hearing the Word, should we not:

• seriously consider how we have behaved?
• find quickening and comfort in the Word, and bless God for it?
• beg the continuance of it?
• watch against relapses?
• encourage ourselves to a frequent attendence to it?
• and if we find no benefit in it to us, to review our preparation?

In preaching we have the gospel "spoken." In the sacraments we have the gospel in physical elements - "proclaiming the Lord's death till he comes." I see the personal preparations for believers very similar as to their essentials between the preaching of the Word and the observance of the sacrament - though we rarely spend much time considering our "preparation" to hear the Word preached.

Following the same logic, should weaker Christians only then attend to the preaching of the Word of God - say monthly?

 

[MW]

Following the same logic, should weaker Christians only then attend to the preaching of the Word of God - say monthly?

Following the same logic denies the primacy of the Word (1 Cor. 1:17) as a converting ordinance (Rom. 10:17).

 

[Reformed Christian]

Following the same logic denies the primacy of the Word (1 Cor. 1:17) as a converting ordinance (Rom. 10:17).

There is not doubt as to the primacy of the Word of God over the sacraments as a converting ordinance.

For the believer, however, the Spirit works "similarly" in our sanctification in both the preached Word and the sacrament. The Lord's Supper is not a means of grace unto justification, but it is a means of grace unto salvation - the Holy Spirit working in us, both through the preparation unto it and in its obsersvance.

 

[MW]

For the believer, however, the Spirit works "similarly" in our sanctification in both the preached Word and the sacrament. The Lord's Supper is not a means of grace unto justification, but it is a means of grace unto salvation - the Holy Spirit working in us, both through the preparation unto it and in its obsersvance.

This is sacerdotalism, not reformed sacramentology. The sacrament has no efficacy apart from the Word, and therefore cannot be said to work similarly to the Word.

 

[Reformed Christian]

This is sacerdotalism, not reformed sacramentology. The sacrament has no efficacy apart from the Word, and therefore cannot be said to work similarly to the Word.

Brother, on this point you are quite mistaken. Far from being sacerdotalism, what I have articuluated is Confessional sacramental theology.

WSC Q. 91. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them.

Note again the similarity the WSC places on the preparation, necessity of faith and work of the Holy Spirit in both the preaching of the Word and the sacraments:

Q. 89. How is the Word made effectual to salvation?
A. The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching, of the Word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith, unto salvation.

Q. 90. How is the Word to be read and heard, that it may become effectual to salvation?
A. That the Word may become effectual to salvation, we must attend thereunto with diligence, preparation, and prayer; receive it with faith and love, lay it up in our hearts, and practice it in our lives.

Nothing I said implies that the sacraments are effectual ex opere operato. You are quick to throw out the "sacradotal" label - I've seen it several times. I'd be more careful.

 

[Reformed Christian]

The sacrament has no efficacy apart from the Word, and therefore cannot be said to work similarly to the Word.

BTW, I did not say that the "sacrament" worked similiarly to the Word. I believe you have misquoted me. If you read my post it says that the Spirit works similiarly in us for our sanctification in both the preached Word and the Lord's Supper.

 

[SolaGratia]

"The Lord's Supper is not a means of grace unto justification, but it is a means of grace unto salvation"

What do you mean by that?

 

[KMK]

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.

This may answer the question as to the meaning of 'intensity': taking seriously what the WS have to say about partaking of the Lord's Supper.

If I am not mistaken I read another thread from quite some time back discussing weekly communion. In it someone asked the question regarding each of the quotes from the LC, "do these same things not apply to the preaching of the Word of God!" For example, should we not when coming to the preaching of the Word:

• prepare ourselves (by the same means outlined)?
• with holy reverence wait upon him?
• stir up ourselves to a vigerous exercise of graces?
• come hungering and thristing after Christ?

And after hearing the Word, should we not:

• seriously consider how we have behaved?
• find quickening and comfort in the Word, and bless God for it?
• beg the continuance of it?
• watch against relapses?
• encourage ourselves to a frequent attendence to it?
• and if we find no benefit in it to us, to review our preparation?

In preaching we have the gospel "spoken." In the sacraments we have the gospel in physical elements - "proclaiming the Lord's death till he comes." I see the personal preparations for believers very similar as to their essentials between the preaching of the Word and the observance of the sacrament - though we rarely spend much time considering our "preparation" to hear the Word preached.

Following the same logic, should weaker Christians only then attend to the preaching of the Word of God - say monthly?

First of all, is this what you mean by 'intensity'? Making full use of the LS as outlined in the WLC?

Secondly, I also disagree with your argument. The primacy of the Word leads us to preach as oft as possible. When the LS is added to the preached Word, according to the WLC, you are adding a great deal of self-reflection and preparation to that which is expected to accompany preaching. I can certainly understand the view that this might be burdening the congregation with more than they can bear. I think it would depend on the congregation.

 

[Reformed Christian]

"The Lord's Supper is not a means of grace unto justification, but it is a means of grace unto salvation" What do you mean by that?

"Salvation" - both biblically and confessionally - is much broader than justification. We have been "saved" (justification), we are being saved (sanctification) and we shall be saved (glorification).

The WSC uses the same language:

Q. 91. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them.

 

[Reformed Christian]

[First of all, is this what you mean by 'intensity'? Making full use of the LS as outlined in the WLC?

Again, I can only "guess" at what folks mean by using the term "intensity." Tha is not a term that I use personally, but a term I have often heard in the context of, "We tend to focus more on intensity than frequency" in regards to the Supper. But I do not know how someone would define that themselves if pressed. And I'm sure that different people would define those things differently - especially when the language itself is not biblical or confessional.

Secondly, I also disagree with your argument. The primacy of the Word leads us to preach as oft as possible.

Agreed. The point I was making, and I'm sure I could have been more clear, is that simply because the Lord's Supper requires "preparation," that is not a reason to do it either more or less frequently. And I was simply pointing out that the Standards also speak of the preparation required to rightly attend to the preaching of the Word of God, yet we would never apply the same logic it.

When the LS is added to the preached Word, according to the WLC, you are adding a great deal of self-reflection and preparation to that which is expected to accompany preaching.

Is there is a greater degree of preparation that goes into the LS than the hearing of the Word of God - especially when we acknowledge the preached Word has such a greater degree of primacy? Certainly there are aspects or preparation in the Supper that Paul articulates that are "unique" to the Supper (e.g. self-examination, judging ourselves and discernment of the Lord's body, etc.), but I'm not sure I see that this constitutes such a different "degree" of preparation that it would require a less frequent observance.

We must be careful in the Lord's Supper that we not make more of it than the scriptures - and that we not make too little of the Supper.

I can certainly understand the view that this might be burdening the congregation with more than they can bear. I think it would depend on the congregation.

The question I have is where do we see biblically that the LS is only for mature Christians who can "bear the burden" of examining themselves. I wonder if this is partly from a view that requires "morbid introspection." It might do folks well to read Willison's Sacramental Catechism regarding those who should come - and what is required to rightly receive the sacrament. It's been very useful in our understanding of the LS. You can see it on Google Books. Paul certainly does not tell the church at Corinth, who were celebrating the Supper in gross sin, that they should wait until the church could "bear the burden" of such an intense preparation.

I'm not sure understand that view.

 

[KMK]

These are good questions.

If we put the WLC teaching on receiving the Word and the LS side by side, let's see what is required.

Q. 160. What is required of those that hear the Word preached?

A. It is required of those that hear the Word preached, that they 1) attend upon it with diligence,[1034] preparation,[1035] and prayer;[1036] 2) examine what they hear by the Scriptures;[1037] 3) receive the truth with faith,[1038] love,[1039] meekness,[1040] and readiness of mind,[1041] as the Word of God;[1042] 4) meditate,[1043] and confer of it;[1044] 5) hide it in their hearts,[1045] and 6) bring forth the fruit of it in their lives[1046].


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 1) examining themselves[1088] of their being in Christ,[1089] 2) of their sins and wants;[1090] 3) of the truth and measure of their knowledge,[1091] faith,[1092] repentance;[1093] 4) love to God and the brethren,[1094] 5) charity to all men,[1095] 6) forgiving those that have done them wrong;[1096] 7) of their desires after Christ,[1097] and of their new obedience;[1098] and by renewing the exercise of these graces,[1099] by 8) serious meditation,[1100] and 9) fervent prayer.[1101]

Q. 174. What is required of them that receive the sacrament of the Lord’s supper in the time of the administration of it?

A. It is required of them that receive the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, that, during the time of the administration of it, 1) with all holy reverence and attention they wait upon God in that ordinance,[1112] 2) diligently observe the sacramental elements and actions,[1113] 3) heedfully discern the Lord’s body,[1114] and 4) affectionately meditate on his death and sufferings,[1115] and thereby stir up themselves to a vigorous exercise of their graces;[1116] 5) in judging themselves,[1117] and sorrowing for sin;[1118] 6) in earnest hungering and thirsting after Christ,[1119] 7)feeding on him by faith,[1120]8) receiving of his fullness,[1121] 9) trusting in his merits,[1122] 10) rejoicing in his love,[1123] 11) giving thanks for his grace;[1124] 12) in renewing of their covenant with God,[1125] 13) and love to all the saints.[1126]

Q. 175. What is the duty of Christians, after they have received the sacrament of the Lord’s supper?

A. The duty of Christians, after they have received the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, is seriously to 1) consider how they have behaved themselves therein, and with what success;[1127] if they find quickening and comfort, to 2) bless God for it,[1128] 3) beg the continuance of it,[1129] 4) watch against relapses,[1130] 5) fulfill their vows,[1131] and 6) encourage themselves to a frequent attendance on that ordinance:[1132] but if they find no present benefit, more exactly to 7) review their preparation to, and carriage at, the sacrament;[1133] in both which, if they can approve themselves to God and their own consciences, they are to wait for the fruit of it in due time:[1134] but, if they see they have failed in either, they are to be humbled,[1135] and to attend upon it afterwards with more care and diligence.[1136]

Therefore, the preached Word requires communicants...

1) attend upon it with diligence, preparation, and prayer
2) examine what they hear by the Scriptures
3) receive the truth with faith, love, meekness, and readiness of mind, as the Word of God
4) meditate, and confer of it
5) hide it in their hearts
6) bring forth the fruit of it in their lives

The LS requires communicants...

1) examining themselves of their being in Christ
2) of their sins and wants
3) of the truth and measure of their knowledge faith, repentance
4) love to God and the brethren
5) charity to all men
6) forgiving those that have done them wrong
7) of their desires after Christ, and of their new obedience
8) serious meditation
9) fervent prayer
10) with all holy reverence and attention they wait upon God
11) diligently observe the sacramental elements and actions
12) heedfully discern the Lord’s body
13) affectionately meditate on his death and sufferings
14) judging themselves, and sorrowing for sin
15) in earnest hungering and thirsting after Christ
16)feeding on him by faith
17) receiving of his fullness
18) trusting in his merits
19) rejoicing in his love
20) giving thanks for his grace
21) in renewing of their covenant with God
22) and love to all the saints

There may be some overlap in these different requirements but the bottom line is this: if a pastor takes seriously everything that the WLC requires of communicants, then he will be placing a much greater burden when the LS is joined with the regularly preached Word.

As a pastor, I am staggered by the WLC in this area. It is no small feat to exhort the communicants to engage in all of these things each time the Lord's Supper is offered.

 

[Reformed Christian]

There may be some overlap in these different requirements but the bottom line is this: if a pastor takes seriously everything that the WLC requires of communicants, then he will be placing a much greater burden when the LS is joined with the regularly preached Word.

As a pastor, I am staggered by the WLC in this area. It is no small feat to exhort the communicants to engage in all of these things each time the Lord's Supper is offered.

Brother, first of all, thank you for taking the time time to pull together all that you have for your reply. I appreciate it.

My question comes back to what we see biblically. I have a tremendous appreciation for the Confession / Catechisms. However, many of the things that it says of the LS apply equally to the Word, whether the standards articulate all of them or not. And certainly the list given for the preparation and attendance to the preached Word is not exhaustive and could have been broken up and made "just as long" (as if that is a standard by which to judge).

I think one my difficulties here is the idea of speaking of these things as a "burden." We are in a ministry that does celebrate the Lord's Supper weekly. And we have taught much over the years on the subject. Our people understand what we do when we come to the Table. So in this respect I think I can understand how that may have an influence, not so much on frequency, but on the overall understanding and personal preparation individuals may have when coming to the Supper.

And I do not dispute that everything listed is not important or should not be observed. However, as a pastor I believe those things should be taught to the church - as we have done and continue to do - so that they understand what it is we are doing (and what is required of them) when we come to the LS.

Every week when we come to the Table we read the words of institution, we fence the table and articulate again what it means to rightly partake. We remind the church, as Peter says he does, of the things they already know. I know for me personally the LS is a tremendous means of sanctification as I consider during the week my communion with Christ at his Supper on the Lord's Day.

As I have read and reread the list you compiled several times, I do not see where any of those would require, or even suggest, an extended period of time between the observance to rightly partake - as if you cannot, on a weekly basis:

1. examine ourselves
2. love God and our brethren
3. forgive wrongdoers
4. seriously meditate
5. fervently pray
6. reverently wait upon God
7. diligently observe the sacraments
8. affectionately meditate
9. judge ourselves
10. hunger and thirst after Christ
11. feed on Christ
12. receive his fullness
13. trust in his merits
14. rejoice in his love
15. give thanks for his grace
16. renew our covenant
17. etc.

There is not doubt that these things are "heightened" in the sacrament. But many of these same things are commanded for the Christian to do - without reference to the LS. Should we not "hunger and thirst after righteousness?" Are we not to forgive, rejoice, give thanks, meditate and pray always?

The LS brings these things into focus for us, because by neglecting these things we may find ourselves disqualified to rightly partake. But we should be about many of these things in our daily pursuit after holiness. Again, I see the LS as a means of grace the Spirit of God uses in my life for my sanctification.

Thanks again, brother. I do appreciate your thoughtful responses.

 

[KMK]

I thank you as well for all of your hard work, Pastor! It sounds like you have a wonderful congregation. Keep it up!

 

[MW]

Note again the similarity the WSC places on the preparation, necessity of faith and work of the Holy Spirit in both the preaching of the Word and the sacraments:

This is irrelevant to your previous assertion. The Catechism questions only state that the Spirit's operation is necessary in both Word and sacraments. Your assertion, however, maintained that the Spirit works similarly in relation to both. The Catechisms support no such assertion. The assertion is contrary to reformed sacramentology. The sacramental exercise of faith is a faith wrought by means of the Word. Sacraments are and ever shall be subordinate to the Word as a means of grace. Your attempted logic to apply sacrament preparation to Word preparation places them on a par and thereby negates the primacy of the Word.

There is no support either exegetical or theological for weekly communion. It is a human tradition; and insofar as it raises the Lord's supper to something more than a sacramental means of grace, it is a human tradition which makes the word of God of none effect.

 

[Reformed Christian]

Note again the similarity the WSC places on the preparation, necessity of faith and work of the Holy Spirit in both the preaching of the Word and the sacraments:

This is irrelevant to your previous assertion. The Catechism questions only state that the Spirit's operation is necessary in both Word and sacraments. Your assertion, however, maintained that the Spirit works similarly in relation to both. The Catechisms support no such assertion. The assertion is contrary to reformed sacramentology. The sacramental exercise of faith is a faith wrought by means of the Word. Sacraments are and ever shall be subordinate to the Word as a means of grace. Your attempted logic to apply sacrament preparation to Word preparation places them on a par and thereby negates the primacy of the Word.

Can you please explain the nature of the Spirit's "operation" in both - and how it is different between the Word and Sacrament as spoken of in questions #89 and 91 - seeing the Catechism says that both are made effectual by the Spirit?

The Standards seem clear that both the Word of God and the Lord's Supper are an effectual means of salvation. In both the Word of God and the Lord's Supper it is the Spirit of God that makes them effectual unto salvation. In both the Word of God and the Lord's Supper we are to come in faith, prayer, preparation and diligence.

No one is speaking of the Lord's Supper as a "converting ordinance." Again, as you know, when the Questions above speak of "salvation" it is not our "justification" that is in view, but our sanctification. That the Word of God does have primacy is the reason I do not say that the Spirit works in the exact same way, but similarly in our sanctification. If the Spirit works "effectually unto our salvation" in both the Word and Sacrament, are you then saying that there is no similarity in the operation of the Spirit as He works effectually?

There is no support either exegetical or theological for weekly communion. It is a human tradition; and insofar as it raises the Lord's supper to something more than a sacramental means of grace, it is a human tradition which makes the word of God of none effect.

We simply disagree on this point. I see the arguments from 1 Cor. 11 to be convincing. You stating the opposite as strongly as you do does not make it so. I wish it were that easy. And some might argue that the extra-biblical, historical references to weekly communion - again the Didache from the 1st century, for example - would suggest "apostolic tradition" and not "human tradition."

But what is more interesting is that now, after I have said that there is no commandment to observe the LS weekly (from the very beginning), that in doing so you’re implying that we are "wrong" and have made the word of God to no effect. What happened to, "as oft as you do it" being vague and left up to a particular congregation to determine the frequency?

 

[SolaGratia]

Lord's Day 25 (Heidelberg Catechism)

65. Since then we are made partakers of Christ and all his benefits by faith only, whence comes this faith?

The Holy Ghost works it in our hearts by the preaching of the Gospel, and confirms it by the use of the Holy Sacraments.



66. What are the Sacraments?

The Sacraments are visible, holy signs and seals, appointed by God for this end, that by the use thereof He may the more fully declare and seal to us the promise of the Gospel: namely, that He grants us out of free grace the forgiveness of sins and everlasting life, for the sake of the one sacrifice of Christ accomplished on the cross.



67. Are both these, then, the Word and the Sacraments, designed to direct our faith to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, as the only ground of our salvation?

Yes truly; for the Holy Ghost teaches in the Gospel, and by the Holy Sacraments assures us, that our whole salvation stands in the one sacrifice of Christ made for us on the cross.

 

[MW]

Can you please explain the nature of the Spirit's "operation" in both - and how it is different between the Word and Sacrament as spoken of in questions #89 and 91 - seeing the Catechism says that both are made effectual by the Spirit?

The old distinction is that faith is roused or engendered by the Word, but faith in the Word is confirmed or strengthened by the sacrament. Please consult Heppe's Reformed Dogmatics, p. 595, 596; Berkhof's Systematic Theology, p. 616. The sacraments require interpretation; the Word provides the interpretation. The Word is indispensable; sacraments are not, but are added to the Word.

What happened to, "as oft as you do it" being vague and left up to a particular congregation to determine the frequency?

If "how often" is a circumstance of worship to be regulated by Christian worship, then it obviously is not an approved example rendering it a divine requirement. OTOH, if the NT had testified weekly observance as an apostolic practice, anything less than weekly observance would be an omission of duty. But as it stands, there is no example of weekly observance in the NT, hence frequency is a circumstance to be determined by Christian prudence.

 

[SolaGratia]

"The Lord's Supper is not a means of grace unto justification, but it is a means of grace unto salvation" What do you mean by that?

"Salvation" - both biblically and confessionally - is much broader than justification. We have been "saved" (justification), we are being saved (sanctification) and we shall be saved (glorification).

The WSC uses the same language:

Q. 91. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them.

How is the Lord's Supper "a means of grace unto(?) salvation" according to Q. 96?

 

[Reformed Christian]

"The Lord's Supper is not a means of grace unto justification, but it is a means of grace unto salvation" What do you mean by that?

"Salvation" - both biblically and confessionally - is much broader than justification. We have been "saved" (justification), we are being saved (sanctification) and we shall be saved (glorification).

The WSC uses the same language:

Q. 91. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them.

How is the Lord's Supper "a means of grace unto(?) salvation" according to Q. 96?

Just a typo, thanks. It should be "of salvation."