Weekly Observance of the Lord's Supper

[Herald]

You seem to imply the Word is dead if not for the Lord's Supper! Drama and sensation make things more real? Then Hollywood gives me the greatest experiences of reality.

Sorry to seem harsh, but you can see where your comment can be easily taken. To a epistemology of materialism and mysticism. That something is not real or true if not experienced emotionally and physically. The next claim is that the rational itself is dead and unreal. That means we can have the pure mind of Christ, and it would be dead and pointless if we don't experience with it some sort of emotional swelling.

When they read the Law of God before the whole of Israel, did it matter if the person reading it was a good actor - able to induce some emotion and feeling into the reading? Can you kill the Word by reading it without drama?
Or was it not the words themselves that mattered?

Is it faith by hearing the Word, or faith by hearing the Word with dramatic vocal intonation?

I do see where my comments can be misunderstood. But accept my statement that I believe the word of God is sufficient by itself. I am not sure the words you use when you observe the Lord's Supper. In our church we use Matthew 26 and 1 Corinthians 11. The word of God is being proclaimed.

 

[Herald]

Has your Baptist Church worked through this? For instance, who can come to the Table? Members only; Baptized only; Baptists only?

Wayne, the short answer is "yes". We have a "protocol" (in lieu of a better term).

 

[Civbert]

I do see where my comments can be misunderstood. But accept my statement that I believe the word of God is sufficient by itself. I am not sure the words you use when you observe the Lord's Supper. In our church we use Matthew 26 and 1 Corinthians 11. The word of God is being proclaimed.

Would you agree that it is the Word proclaimed that gives real spiritual substance to the Lord's Supper? That is, it is not the act of eating, or the elements that convey the blessing - but the power of the spoken Word.

I'm just thinking out loud - not assuming you disagree or not. I'm just wondering in general what exactly is the blessings conveyed by the Lord's Supper, and what is really the instrument that conveys the blessing. Do the physical elements themselves make the Lords Supper a blessing? Or are they simply the symbols that represent the Word that is proclaimed - and the Word is the real source of power to convey blessing is held. I think the Confessions and Catechisms are somewhat ambiguous on this point. There may be some wiggle room - at least many read some wiggle room that I don't see.

 

[Herald]

Would you agree that it is the Word proclaimed that gives real spiritual substance to the Lord's Supper? That is, it is not the act of eating, or the elements that convey the blessing - but the power of the spoken Word.

I'm just thinking out loud - not assuming you disagree or not. I'm just wondering in general what exactly is the blessings conveyed by the Lord's Supper, and what is really the instrument that conveys the blessing. Do the physical elements themselves make the Lords Supper a blessing? Or are they simply the symbols that represent the Word that is proclaimed - and the Word is the real source of power to convey blessing is held. I think the Confessions and Catechisms are somewhat ambiguous on this point. There may be some wiggle room - at least many read some wiggle room that I don't see.

Absolutely! Is the word of God proclaimed that gives real spiritual substance to the Lord's Supper. Neither the elements or the act of partaking of them convey any spiritual blessing.

What are the blessings of partaking of the Lord's Supper? Obviously there is the obedience factor. We are commanded to observe it. Frequency is up for debate, but not the sacrament itself. Hear me carefully on this, I do not wish to be accused of adding to the word of God or seeking spiritual direction apart from it. I do believe that observing the Lord's Supper frequently (whatever that may mean) is one method of proclaiming the gospel. Is this not what Paul meant when he wrote, 1 Corinthians 11:26 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes. The Lord's Supper is not the only means of proclaiming the gospel, but it is a biblical means. Additionally, while not the main reason for partaking of the Lord's Supper, its observance should call a believer to examine his life. Lastly, I believe it a good thing to call the attention of God's people to the cross on a regular basis. That is done through the faithful teaching of God's word. Since the Lord's Supper is biblical, it is one method of teaching the cross of Christ.

 

[Herald]

Bill, that being your attitude, then you must see our whole procedure as smug, because we have communion the way we do in order to avoid making it a tack-on. I don't presume to know what happens in your church, but I have tasted of both cups, and I can only say, The old is better. In Acts 20 the disciples came together for the purpose of breaking bread. That is impossible in a weekly communion. It is a blessed reality in seasonal communions. In traditional Scottish Presbyterianism, it is called the communion Sabbath.

Matthew, I have no criticism of your procedure. I believe the frequency of the Lord's Supper is open for discussion. I am not here to judge or criticize how your church observes the sacrament. But to suggest that we just "tack-on" the Lord's Supper to our worship service does sound smug. I am not Presbyterian and make no pretense to understand the Presbyterian view of the Lord's Supper. That is why I started this thread. I wanted to know what others believed and their practice. Based on what you have written I now have some insight on how your church observes the Lord's Supper. That is all I wanted to know.

 

[nominalist747]

Rev. Winzer, you said: But the real benefit is spiritual, not carnal and corporal. Spiritual benefits are not tied to temporalities.

This is really a problem: so there is no connection between baptism and what it stands for? Or between the physical words in preaching and the effectual call of the Holy Spirit? You've totally severed the thing signified from the sign itself--historic Quakerism made this sort of idea the grounds for no external baptism or LS.

Furthermore, we are justified because of the temporal work of Christ prior to his ascension, and there sure are some spiritual benefits from that. Unless you're defining 'temporalities' in some peculiar way, this is not a viable principle.

 

[jaybird0827]

Sorry if it appeared I wasn't answering, but sleep is one of those things I just can't do without.

Traditionally Presbyterians speak of communion seasons, wherein the people prepare themselves for the Lord's supper. Believing as we do that the Supper has come in the place of the Passover, we think it should be given the same prominence as the Passover had for the people of Israel. There will be services of humiliation and preparation for the communion, and usually a thanksgiving sermon after the communion. At the communion itself, the sermon will be specifically directed towards the significance of the Supper. There will be a fencing of the tables, and also table addresses.

In days gone by such blessings have accompanied these seasons that they have customarily been called one of the days of the Son of Man on earth. I myself have been privileged to be a partaker of some very blessed communion seasons, for which I praise the Lord of heaven.

What you're describing here is basically the practice of the Presbyterian Reformed Church with regards to the Lord's Supper. In our local congregation the Communion Sabbaths occur quarterly on a first Lord's Day of a month. I had never been so impressed with the gravity of the Lord's table, the requirement for self-examination, and the importance of keeping short accounts with others in the church. The hope of feeding upon Christ and improving the blessing of his Spirit are very real to me, as is the risk of eating and drinking judgment as a result of unworthy or pretentious partaking. I am saddened by what comes across as a such a low view of the Lord's Table in the contemporary church.

In one of our congregations the original practice had been to hold the Communion Sabbath monthly. The Pastor eventually pleaded with the Session to reduce this to a quarterly frequency. He was preaching a preparatory sermon the Lord's Day prior to the communion and the congregation was under instruction subsequently to prepare for the communion the next Lord's Day. His argument was that monthly communion was taking two Sundays a month and that left only 2-3 Sundays a month for ordinary preaching! It also had the effect of putting a heavier burden on the Session because of the requirement to examine visitors.

I really think that part of reforming and purifying the Church requires a much higher view of the Lord's Table than what is typical in most churches today.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Bill, that being your attitude, then you must see our whole procedure as smug, because we have communion the way we do in order to avoid making it a tack-on. I don't presume to know what happens in your church, but I have tasted of both cups, and I can only say, The old is better. In Acts 20 the disciples came together for the purpose of breaking bread. That is impossible in a weekly communion. It is a blessed reality in seasonal communions. In traditional Scottish Presbyterianism, it is called the communion Sabbath.

Let me say, first, that I do appreciate your theological insights and you have much to offer but a fair reading of the beginning of this thread would make it very clear that you really ought not be labelling Bill as the party with an "attitude" in this exchange.

Bill provided his reasons for moving to weekly communion and, instead of posting a positive list of reasons why you only celebrate it semi-annually, you made a very brief (and seemingly smug) reply.

I then, very innocently, asked you why and you refused to answer over many posts, in fact until today, why you believe the practice should be only semi-annual. I probably wouldn't have disputed with you over it if you had merely given me some background. I might not have agreed with it but I would have respected where you stood.

Instead you stood off aloof, close-mouthed as it were: "I'm not telling you what I believe but I'm merely going to pick apart any lack of exactitude in your use of language...." When I spoke of the language of Scripture talking about the Supper being a proclamation of the death and resurrection of Christ, you could only seem to muster criticism of some potential abuse of that language which I did not type.

My suggestion to you is:
1. Take the log out of your own eye before you remove the speck in your brother's.
2. Perhaps you can be more helpful with your great knowledge instead of being so contrary at times.

As for my part, I admit to being sharp at times and was petty in some of my posts yesterday. For that I apologize.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Fair enough. It's not my intent to engage in another argument with you. Ask other members what they think if you think my perception is flawed. It was very frustrating for me yesterday as it seemed all you were merely acting in a contrary way and not being very helpful.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Separate issue (not directed at Rev Winzer). On the Confession's use of "carnal and corporeal", I think we need to be careful not to confuse any who may be unfamiliar with the Confessions' use of that language.

The language is a polemic against the Roman Catholic understanding of transubstantiation or any other version that teaches that we physically feed on Christ's flesh and blood in the Sacrament. We feed on Christ but it is spiritual and sacramental and not physical and corporeal.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Then I apologise for frustrating you, Rich; although I think the medium of the discussion baord and the inability to say all things at once might have to take some of the blame. Blessings!

Thank you. It really is quite silly in the end.

I really do appreciate your contributions to the board.

 

[Herald]

Matthew - it also my desire not to end our discussion with hard feelings. Sometimes I am far too sensitive. I greatly respect your posts and look forward to a continued dialog.

 

[nominalist747]

All I am saying is that the benefits are not tied to the admin. of the sacrament. I didn't argue that we should NEVER have the Lord's supper; which could then be construed as a real severing of the sign and thing signified, as in the case of Quakers. I have argued that we could have the Lord's supper annually, and it would still be frequent according to the analogy of the Passover.

However often the Lord's supper is celebrated, its benefits will not be increased. On the weeks that it is not celebrated, I can continue to improve the last celebration as equally as I improve on my baptism. Latent in these kinds of discussions is a form of subjective individualism that is no part of the Lord's purpose in instituting the supper -- which, I regret to say, is both the incentive of a a weekly observance of the Supper and is also encouraged by it.

1. The benefits are not tied to the administration of Supper: then what is the point of the Supper, if we can get the benefits without it? This still seems to be overspiritualizing.

2. I find the latent subjectivism, in fact, in the spiritualizing argument you are making. The important thing in your view is not the corporate, extra nos sacrament, but rather our own internal activity of "improving on" the sacrament (notice the use of the first-person singular pronoun when what is done between actual celebration of the LS is described!).

My own arguments for weekly communion would be these (not in any particular order):
1. It is a physical activity, which thus affirms the created goodness of the material world and the real incarnation of the Lord. The preaching of the Word does not do this in the same way.
2. It is communal, in a way that listening to a sermon is not. We serve the food to one another, wait for everyone to receive their share before eating, witness the leaders of the church serve us and each other, etc. This gets back to the thread on 1 Cor. 11, which I'm not interested in revisiting here (although I have put a new comment up there). Clearly, even if Paul doesn't mean the church when he refers to the body in v. 29, the communal nature of the LS is of vital importance to him.
3. It sums up all of redemptive history in a single, complex symbol. It points us back to the finished work of Christ, but also points us forward to the consummation (1 Cor. 11:26; Isa. 25:6-8; Matt. 8:11, 22:1-14, 26:29). It summons us to faith and the the service that is the fruit and evidence of faith (1 Cor. 10:1-12). The complexity of the symbol is too rich to be entirely unpacked every time it is celebrated, so we either leave out the complexity, or just talk about the LS without actually doing it (e.g., four sermons on the LS, when only partaking on one of those days in a monthly communion pattern), which is absurd, as it was instituted primarily to be done not merely talked about (although the Word is absolutely necessary as explanation of the symbol, to prevent superstition).
4. It was the practice of the early church: Acts 2:42 ties it together with the regular teaching of the apostles; 1 Cor. 11:18 & 20 seem indicate that the LS was an integral part of coming together as the church; Acts 20:7 seems to indicate weekly communion (and I have no idea why you say that the "breaking of bread" described there cannot be done weekly).
5. Calvin advocated weekly communion and considered the quarterly communion in Geneva to be a holdover from Roman supersition.

There's no subjective individualism here: 1 and 3 are objective, pointing to the work of God; 4 is historical practice; 5 points out that it is good Reformed practice; 2 is directed specifically against individualism. In fact, I find this argument especially important--we need to expand our focus in the LS beyond just the elements of bread and wine to the actions involved (as Paul does in 1 Cor. 11), and in an individualistic culture as our own, we need frequent and repeated practice in corporate service.

 

[nominalist747]

What you're describing here is basically the practice of the Presbyterian Reformed Church with regards to the Lord's Supper. In our local congregation the Communion Sabbaths occur quarterly on a first Lord's Day of a month. I had never been so impressed with the gravity of the Lord's table, the requirement for self-examination, and the importance of keeping short accounts with others in the church. The hope of feeding upon Christ and improving the blessing of his Spirit are very real to me, as is the risk of eating and drinking judgment as a result of unworthy or pretentious partaking. I am saddened by what comes across as a such a low view of the Lord's Table in the contemporary church.

In one of our congregations the original practice had been to hold the Communion Sabbath monthly. The Pastor eventually pleaded with the Session to reduce this to a quarterly frequency. He was preaching a preparatory sermon the Lord's Day prior to the communion and the congregation was under instruction subsequently to prepare for the communion the next Lord's Day. His argument was that monthly communion was taking two Sundays a month and that left only 2-3 Sundays a month for ordinary preaching! It also had the effect of putting a heavier burden on the Session because of the requirement to examine visitors.

I really think that part of reforming and purifying the Church requires a much higher view of the Lord's Table than what is typical in most churches today.

But a frequency does not entail a lower view, as you seem to imply. I also don't see that such elaborate preparation is needed, since the preparation is nothing more than what is required every day in our Christian lives: repenting for sin, seeking reconciliation with each other, etc. Finally, it seems a little odd to emphasize the importance of keeping short accounts once every quarter.

 

[Larry Hughes]

Neither the elements or the act of partaking of them convey any spiritual blessing.

This is a yes and a no going back to the days of the early reformers including Calvin. The elements by themselves are just elements, bread and wine, there is nothing efficacious in and of them in and of themselves. That’s the ‘yes’ part, apart from the Word given them that’s all they are (the same of baptism).

Here come two “no’s”:

But when God’s ministers by Christ’s command and implementation of it invoke, “this is my body broken for you, this is my blood for the forgiveness of your sins”, then it is sanctified, set apart for God’s REAL use, taken up into holy use by God by His Word through the instrument of the mouth of the pastor. Then, the elements are not just normal bread and wine, but sacramental and covenantal, linking by the Word. Then the elements are holy and when eaten and drank indeed convey the spiritual blessing the Word adds to them, namely the Gospel. It is not a vain and empty ceremony but conveys the very blessing given it. To say that it gives no spiritual blessing is to divide what God has joined and tear asunder what God has joined BY HIS WORD, Word and elements, for one purpose to give the blessed Gospel. It’s not ‘magic’ bread and ‘mystic’ wine, but a sacramental relationship. If the bread and wine do not convey any blessing due to their “addedness”, then it would be superfluous and profane. It was no small thing for Christ to say, “I have longed to have this meal with you, it was indeed the pinnacle of His ministry just before the Cross.”

The act of partaking them do indeed convey the spiritual blessing of the Gospel and nothing less. Which makes it far far from not conveying anything and unto infinite value. Similarly, if the act of partaking them conveys no spiritual blessing another way of saying that exact same thing is that the Lord’s Supper is profane, which is far far far from the truth. This idea usually comes forth from a form of rationalism that says to wit: Man performs the act therefore it is man’s act of working and obedience therefore, it is of no avail. IF that were in fact true then we could agree but that is in fact false. For it is NOT an act of man but the work of God through the agency of man. The Lord’s Supper is His working and not man’s. This is why man can take it hypocritically because, like baptism, it’s not based in man’s doing, though man performs the work as an instrument, it is based in God’s Word and His body and blood. The act of taking it most certainly DOES convey spiritual blessing. In fact it is contradictory to state that then turn around and agree that man can drink it unto wrath. But this requires nothing less than the blessed gift of saving faith to grasp. To the rational mind it’s just bread and wine that ‘happens to be there with the Word’. But to the eyes of faith it is a powerful work of God in the simple bread and wine. Much like the scandal of the Cross it is too small for the glory eyes of the flesh to behold it and is folly and a religious stumbling block. But to those being saved, faith, it is the very power of God and faith must look where God has said to look and be sustained where God has said to be fed. But only faith will trust this, the very essence of saving faith.

Thus, only to the rationalistic eyes of the flesh is the Lord’s bread and wine and the act of taking it not conveying the spiritual blessing it holds given it by the Word of Gospel. In fact that is to take it unworthily. That is part of the wrath under it when taken hypocritically. If the flesh refuses to trust the bread and wine actually giving the Christ in it as the Word speaks, sacramentally/covenantally, then part of the wrath is that very thing – being turned over to the unbelief to the very thing it conveys. That is not believing the bread and wine and act give the blessing, that is part of the wrath in hypocritically taking it, being turned over to not believing it. When the flesh forsakes the Gospel thus, it gets what it seeks, nothing but a turning back to itself.

If it is said that the Word is where faith alone rests and not in the Lord’s Supper the folly of this is obvious since the Word institutes and commands the Supper and gives the Gospel there. God’s people, faith, ALWAYS goes where God says go and I’ll be there savingly, in whatever and wherever they are directed. The bronze serpent on the pole was just earthly metal, profane and nothing more. But when the sinning church, Israel, were being bitten by the serpents for their sin God took up the bronze serpent and pole into His use making it for then, holy. This pointed to Christ as Christ Himself clarifies in John’s Gospel. But to the eyes of rationalism and unbelief it would still just be a bronze serpent on a pole. But to the eyes of those being saved it is the power of God because God in essences says to faith, “LOOK here and be saved and sustained, be directed HERE and be saved and sustained, and thus the people of God must look to where He points and to what He takes up into His use for it is nothing less than holy at that point. When God takes a profane element that is other wise just a thing of creation and nothing more and attaches His Word, promise, Gospel, name, body and blood to it – it is NOW holy and by no means empty and vain nor superfluous.

Blessings,

Ldh

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Finally, it seems a little odd to emphasize the importance of keeping short accounts once every quarter.

I found this a bit odd too; I would think if you want less time to keep short accounts, a greater frequency would seem to be more beneficial.
I once again suggest taking the time to go through the RFW thread I noted above, as well as Dr. Bacon's article on the Westminster Stds. and frequency of communion.
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/Frequency_of_Communion.htm

 

[Me Died Blue]

One observation that I think is very relevant to this discussion is the fact that the writers of the Westminster Confession, in the chapter on baptism, made a specific point to include the very explicit statement that "the efficacy...is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered" (28.6). Yet there is no such corresponding claim in the chapter on the Supper, or in the chapter on the sacraments as a whole.

Partially in light of that fact, it seems that there must be at least some distinction between the two sacraments with respect to the relationship that each has to the time of administration. Indeed, if that were not the case, and if the efficacy of the Supper were no more tied to the moment of its administration than is the efficacy of baptism, what logical benefit would there (indeed, could there) be in anyone ever partaking of the Supper a second time?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

One observation that I think is very relevant to this discussion is the fact that the writers of the Westminster Confession, in the chapter on baptism, made a specific point to include the very explicit statement that "the efficacy...is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered" (28.6). Yet there is no such corresponding claim in the chapter on the Supper, or in the chapter on the sacraments as a whole.

Partially in light of that fact, it seems that there must be at least some distinction between the two sacraments with respect to the relationship that each has to the time of administration. Indeed, if that were not the case, and if the efficacy of the Supper were no more tied to the moment of its administration than is the efficacy of baptism, what logical benefit would there (indeed, could there) be in anyone ever partaking of the Supper a second time?

Excellent point. It seems that those arguing for a semi-annual observance are loathe to admit that there is any Spiritual benefit to the person who receives it worthily at the time of administration.

I too find it very odd that the only argument I've seen for semi-annual observance is an existential one: the congregation might mess it up and not take it seriously. Even though the sacramenal efficacy isn't tied to the person administering to it, it seems that its efficacy to feed is tied to the entire congregation getting it completely right.

Isn't the whole purpose of the means of grace to strengthen the Body towards the ends of righteousness and not the other way around?

 

[Herald]

While my Presbyterian brethren parse the WCF (no insult intended!), I wonder if there are any other Baptists that care to weigh in on this. ???

 

[Semper Fidelis]

This is not a good point. Weekly observers still have the problem that their "sacramental efficacy" must last them throughout the week until the next observance. Unless one believe in daily communion you are bound to acknowledge that the benefits of the Supper are not tied to observance; and even then, you would have to wait until the next day. Which is as much as to say, that the efficacy is in the indwelling of the Spirit all the time, and the sacramental observance is only an outward seal of that inward communion.

But I'm not arguing that grace is like some sort of battery that we need to keep re-charging. I'm merely stating that it does strengthen just as the Word and the Confession states.

Again, you seem to be afraid to note that there is any immanent benefit to the believer as if God is only acting upon us in a completely transcendant way and that His Word and Sacraments do not strenghthen us today for the work He has commanded.

I'm not trying to define how that strenghtening exactly occurs but you seem to keep arguing that no strenghtening occurs in the Sacrament except some sort of transcendant benefit. Where I'm willing to just leave that strengtening undefined you seem to want to define precisely in the opposite direction and make it atemporal. Neither the Scriptures nor the WCF speak of the Lord's Supper as having atemporal benefit so you seem to be adding to both.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich, who said or even implied such a thing? Once again I am led to call you back to the OT observance of Passover and to make you wrestle with the fact that God only appointed it to be observed once a year. THEREFORE, once a year cannot be regarded as infrequent observance of the sacrament. THEREFORE, there can be no added benefit in celebrating it more often. The only way a yearly celebration could be non-beneficial would be if it broke a commandment. As you acknowledge that it does not do so, there is no argument for more regular communion on the basis that it is more beneficial.

1. The Passover was strictly commanded to be celebrated once a year. The Lord's Supper was not. If you are so insistent on pointing to the Passover then you seem to be inconsistent in celebrating it semi-annually.

2. As such, the semi-annual observance is an arbitrary frequency set by your Church. Why? Because you don't believe there is any frequency that would be beneficial and you apparently aren't folllowing a Passover frequency (except when you don't like me calling it infrequent). Since you find no immanent benefit to the meal then why even semi-annual?

3. The reason you give for semi-annual is to "make it special" and to "allow for proper corporate preparation"

In the end, the only "reason" for your semi-annual observance has nothing to do with its immanent benefit but upon reason 3 - the congregation "gets it right and makes it special"

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Then you should be arguing for DAILY communion. Because we need that strength that EVERY DAY.

Red Herring

 

[Me Died Blue]

This is not a good point. Weekly observers still have the problem that their "sacramental efficacy" must last them throughout the week until the next observance. Unless one believe in daily communion you are bound to acknowledge that the benefits of the Supper are not tied to observance; and even then, you would have to wait until the next day. Which is as much as to say, that the efficacy is in the indwelling of the Spirit all the time, and the sacramental observance is only an outward seal of that inward communion.

I am not necessarily arguing for weekly communion, as I have yet to reach a conviction on the most beneficial specific frequency. In fact, I'm somewhat inclined to think that it depends on the spiritual state of each flock, with the elders knowing the specific issues and struggles the various members are going through, and which doctrinal matters they need the most help in understanding better.

I am, however, definitely convinced that it is an over-simplification of the frequency issue to lump the Supper's nature together with that of baptism by completely denying any and all connection between the efficacy and the time of administration.

So I'm still curious to know, first, what you make of the Confession's clear language on that connection in the chapter on baptism, versus the complete absence of that same language or its equivalent in the chapters on the Supper and the sacraments.

Secondly, with the same logic you applied to weekly (or monthly) observance versus semi-annual (or the like) observance, would you disagree with the elders of a church who planned to only serve communion to each member once (or maybe two or three times) in his lifetime? If you would disagree, on what grounds?

 

[Herald]

This is not a good point. Weekly observers still have the problem that their "sacramental efficacy" must last them throughout the week until the next observance. Unless one believe in daily communion you are bound to acknowledge that the benefits of the Supper are not tied to observance; and even then, you would have to wait until the next day. Which is as much as to say, that the efficacy is in the indwelling of the Spirit all the time, and the sacramental observance is only an outward seal of that inward communion.

Matthew - I'm a little confused. I don't view the efficacy of the Lord's Supper as having to last for a week. If that were the case, what exactly is lasting for a week? I'm a big picture type of guy, so let me put it in a format that I best can follow:

1. The Lord's Supper, at the time of observance, is a proclamation of the gospel.
2. Believers are to examine themselves before partaking. This supposes recognition and confession of sin.
3. The communal participation in the Lord's Supper brings the local fellowship together in a real and tangible way. Could this possibly be a manifestation of grace itself? Not sure, just asking.
4. Seeing as the Lord's Supper requires self-examination and confession of sin, may it not serve as an admonition from the word of God to pursue holiness daily? If that is so, then the Lord's Supper is not "carry over" sacrament. Its observance may cause individuals to dwell upon the word of the Lord during the week.

Just a thought, not a sermon.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I completely understand your point and it just restates what I said in more elaborate language but the fact remains that you don't really believe the Sacrament does anything immanent for the believer and you are waiting to administer the means of grace until the congregation is strong enough to receive the strength that the Lord's Supper provides.

There is a profound irony in that.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Interesting defintion for immanent. What theological dictionary did you find it defined as individualistically and subjective?

 

[rjlynam]

Kudos to you Rich. I admire your kind, well thought out posts

I personally believe "Moderation in all things" is the way to go. But that might merely suggest that I think that communion should be served no more than once per service .