Posts: 14,450
Joined: April 2001
|
|
|
Forums30
Topics7,781
Posts54,881
Members974
|
Most Online732 Jan 15th, 2023
|
|
|
#53486
Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:04 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516 Likes: 13
Needs to get a Life
|
OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516 Likes: 13 |
In the WCF concerning the Lord's Supper, it mentions that only in the corporate Church body should the Lord's supper be used. In the LBCF however it omits only partaking corporately. Basically because for people in good standing who can not make it to Church, an elder can go to them so they can partake. In his modern Expostion of the 1689 BCF. Samuel Waldren declares that he believes that the WCF is correct, seeing how the Lord's Supper is always a Church ordinance. During out men's group discussion on this matter. The men seemed to be split right down the middle. I for one although I certainly understand someone who is unable to get to Church wanting to partake. I still favour the WCF reading because individuals in and of themselves don't make up the local Church. One person used a Scripture verse that said "Where two or three are gathered, there I am in the midst of them. However I believe he used this verse out of context. Any thoughts on the issue, would be appreciated.
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450 Likes: 57
Head Honcho
|
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,450 Likes: 57 |
First of all, the verse referenced has nothing to do with the Lord's Supper but rather Jesus is establishing the rule of authority of the eldership with the specific case of church discipline: Matthew 18:15-20 (ASV) "And if thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he hear [thee] not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established. And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican. Verily I say unto you, what things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father who is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Now as to the question itself, whether it is permissible to administer the Lord's Supper privately; apart from the corporate gathering of the saints. I personally take a mediate position. I believe that ordinarily, the Supper should only be administered by ordained Elders during a corporate gathering of the church wherein there is the preaching of the Word. And this administration of the Supper is to be done to professing believers only... (I hold to "close" communion vs. "closed" or "open" communion). However, I do believe there are extenuating circumstances where the Lord's Supper may be administered quasi-privately by request from those who are infirm and unable to physically attend the normal place of worship. In those exceptional cases, there should be an ordained Elder and several members of the church in attendance. The Word of God should be preached, psalms and songs sung and prayers offered up to God in addition to the actual partaking of the elements. In Scripture, it seems those elements of worship are always present. And, the presence of a body of believers is most necessary, for the two major elements of the Lord's Supper are, 1) communion with Christ by His Spirit, and 2) the communion of the saints of Christ. G.I. Williamson, in his study guide on the WCF takes the strict position that the Lord's Supper should never be outside of the corporate worship of God. Charles Hodge, in his commentary of the WCF on p. 362 takes the 'mediate' position to which I hold. It must be emphasized that there is no inherent power nor transfer of grace in either of the sacraments of baptism or the Lord's Supper, although there is most certainly a spiritual reality that does exist and applied to true believers. But neither are necessary for the salvation of the soul.
simul iustus et peccator
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516 Likes: 13
Needs to get a Life
|
OP
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 4,516 Likes: 13 |
That was exactly why I said he used the verse out of context. Reading what you said about administering the Lord's Supper in extenuating cercumstances to shut ins; it appears like you are agreeing with the LBCF. The wording of the WCF; appears not to be leaving room for the "mediate" position.
What you called "close" Communion seems to be exactly what the LBCF says. It is clear, that it is not for "open" communion. Yet it also clear it does not support "closed" communion. This is something I would liked "fleshed out" a little more. But to me it is basically saying that the Scriptural warnings of partaking in the Lord's Table unworthily without discerning the Lord's body and blood, should always be read by the elder. If so, this is exactly what is the present practice in the Church I attend.
Thinking about what you said about the additional of several members of the Church should be present, as well as hymns and songs sung, makes a lot of sense.
Thank you for the dialogue. It has certainly given me more to think about. Tom
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 483
Addict
|
Addict
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 483 |
Think that your position would be what the scriptures would allow for, and would they not be the final arbiter in any issue regarding doctrine and/or practices?
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
84
guests, and
17
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
|