Should the Lord's Supper Be Served to Shut-ins?

One point that DavidO and I have made that has not been addressed is that through the documentation (Baptist Catechism and London Bapt. Conf.) we have provided, we have sufficiently proved that a sacramental view of the ordinances is not a novelty to Baptists or an accommodation to Reformed, Lutheran, or Catholic views; but is, indeed, a well-documented and traditional view, going back to the very beginning of the Particular Baptist movement.

[DavidO]

I should also clarify that I don’t say the things above to argue that special trips must be made to shut-ins to administer the supper. I think the Bible teaches it is a corporate thing. I don’t think it would be improper, however, for a pastor and group from the congregation to visit shut-ins who so desire to hold a mini-communion service.

Still resist the notion that we get grace from communion, other than I suppose what would be called the grace of renewed faith from day to day as we walk with the Lord and acknowledge his Lordship over us. But this is no more than simple faith, and communion as well as the other things you mentioned are opportunities for expressing faith also. Of course, I don’t believe faith originates with God, but that’s another debate.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Andrew K wrote:

TylerR wrote:

Your quote included the following:

worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses

I find no warrant for this kind of suggestion. We observe the Lord’s Supper in remembrance of His shed blood and broken body until He returns. I see no justification for suggesting Christ is present, in any form or fashion, in the bread and wine (juice!). I’ve never understood. I read Reymond’s view. I’ve read Berkhof. I’ve read Calvin. I honestly just don’t understand where folks get this idea.

For what it’s worth, here is my own explanation of the Lord’s Supper as a memorial. I have to re-do it to interact with Reymond; I’ll get to it someday.

I don’t disagree that the Lord’s Supper is a memorial. But I think that Scripture indicates it is more than that. Again, in 1 Cor. 10.16:

Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?

What does it mean to “share” in the blood of Christ? What does it mean to “share” in the body of Christ? It must somehow be parallel to the “sharing” that occurs when partaking of pagan sacrificial meals, which Paul warns about later, wherein there is a spiritual sharing in demons.

Again, this is all in the context of warnings against idolatry. But if this is only a memorial in view, why should that be an issue? If Christ is not spiritually present in some sense, what is the community partaking of?

A purely memorialist view just doesn’t seem to square with what Paul is communicating in this passage.

(once more, I’m not much of an exegete myself, so I’m heavily relying on Richard Barcellos’s work here, which I found excellent and convincing. For a much better treatment on the issue, refer to him.)

They are sharing in the memorial. It is a memorial for them, assuming they are believers. Those who have no relationship with Christ have no part in the memorial. Think Nehemiah 2:20 as an exemplar.

Yes, but if they share in the pagan sacrificial meal, they are sharing in demons (remember, the context here is idolatry). It cannot be just a memorial, because how would that apply in a parallel fashion to sharing in demons? Indesputably, the true believer has no relationship with demons either. Yet he is warned that partaking of their table is idolatrous and provokes the Lord to jealousy.
If your argument is correct, then it seems to me that the Corinthians should be right and Paul wrong: taking part in the pagan meal should have no real significance to the believer, since he has no relationship with the demons.

Of course it has significance. It is a personal identification as part of the group represented by the symbol - whether demonic in the temple meat or Christian in the Communion supper.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Of course it has significance. It is a personal identification as part of the group represented by the symbol - whether demonic in the temple meat or Christian in the Communion supper.

Andrew, I think you are stretching the passage to try to massage something out of it (or shoehorn something into it) that just isn’t there. Concern over identification with a group completely satisfies the plain language of the passage, but you are looking for “something” (which you cannot identify because the passage doesn’t actually talk about it) else to be present.

I agree that 1 Cor 10 is a neglected text regarding the Lord’s Table. FWIW, here are my thoughts on the koinonia of Communion. You can read it here:

http://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2014/08/18/koinonia-and-the-lords-tabl…

In the context of 1 Cor 10, Paul uses principles from the koinonia that exists between the sacrifice and the participants of the meal to explain why eating meat offered to idols is such a big deal, even though the meat is good and an idol is nothing. There are a lot of contemporary applications that could be made that go beyond the scope or intent of my article, but the overall concept of the koinonia with Christ and the church that the elements represent is something I don’t think gets as much attention as it should.

I appreciate the commentary on this thread. this is an area that I am struggling at with defining for myself, and the information here has been very useful. Andy, I like what you have wrote.

Can we link koinonia exhibited in communion with the fact that the Bible teaches that when the local church itself is fully aligned with Christian fellowship there is great power. I find the “means of grace” terminology to always be unclear. But could we infer that a body of believers that are exhibiting true fellowship of themselves, along with taking communion together as a sign of true fellowship with Christ, that there are further blessings associated with this? Could this be tied to the terminology “means of grace”. We know that great power is conferred by Christ to His local church when that church is in fellowship and aligned with Christ, as seen in Revelations.

[DavidO]

Chip, in light of I Cor. 11:26, a purely memorial view does not seem sufficient.

… as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

The supper is a means of proclaiming Christ to people who are already converted. What does this accomplish? What does the making of the memorial accomplish.

David’s comment here brings up a lot of questions for me. For starters, given that nonbelievers can and do attend churches, it’s worth arguing that it’s not just believers to whom Christ is proclaimed—never mind the reality that unbelievers can be and often are interested about what goes on inside church walls. So I don’t know that it simply proclaims Christ to the converted. Perhaps primarily, but definitely not entirely.

But even if it were so, along the lines of the post asking about “Gospel Ripples”, is not the Gospel a glorious truth that we can repeat without it “getting old”? Moreover, given churches’ well-known propensity to get into what Pastor MacLachlan would call the “left ditch” or the “right ditch”, would we not conclude that we need something going on routinely that is an unequivocal reminder of the centrality of Christ dying to save sinners?

I’d say “definitely”. Many thanks, David, for a great “launching point”, by the way.

Any time. :D

Re:

I don’t know that it simply proclaims Christ to the converted. Perhaps primarily, but definitely not entirely.

And the follow up I’d ask is does that proclamation accomplish anything spiritual/gracious in the hearts and lives of those converts?

These were just posted.
Here are some resources (mp3 downloads) for anyone curious re. how Confessional Reformed Baptists view the ordinances and what we mean by “means of grace” language.
http://confessingbaptist.com/2014-founders-conf-sw-audio-now-online-the…

[Andrew K]

These were just posted.

Here are some resources (mp3 downloads) for anyone curious re. how Confessional Reformed Baptists view the ordinances and what we mean by “means of grace” language.

http://confessingbaptist.com/2014-founders-conf-sw-audio-now-online-the-…

Hi AndrewK,

Anything in writing? I’m looking for something to explain what “means of grace” signifies from the scriptures from the Reformed tradition. Not really wanting to spend hours listening over a few points.

To DavidO and Bert Perry,

Concerning the “proclamation”: What did the Old Covenant sacrifices accomplish? The book of Hebrews says the blood of bulls and goats did not take away sins, so what did they accomplish? I suggest those OT sacrifices pictured Christ’s once for all sacrifice and now, in remembering Christ (The Lord’s Supper), we picture our receiving Christ’s work for ourselves as the basis what gave us the New Life. I see no problem with a forward look by OT saints and a memorial look now. In my mind the picturing is the proclamation. This must be the reason why some were sick and also dying from slovenly picturing Christ’s sacrifice. Think of how solemn the OT pictures were in this regard that death could also feature from wrongly fulfilling the specific laws of the sacrifice. Yet those sacrifices never took away sins and, to my mind, the Lord’s Supper does not give grace anymore than any other act of faith the Christian performs.

So The Lord’s Supper can be viewed as an ‘identifying stand’ which functions as encouragement to other Christians to stand and also an ‘invitation’ to non-Christians to accept Him and His sacrifice for themselves. Think if you were earnestly witnessing to someone and then did something stupid like get drunk in front of them in connection with your witness. This, it seems, is what Paul was saying in 1Cor. 11: they were picturing and thus proclaiming Christ and then selfishly getting drunk. Also, the left out the poor when they may not even have had any ‘elements’ to observe this ordinance, but this may be somewhat speculative.

When observing The Lord’s Supper, one is giving their testimony of what Christ did for them and so “remembering” Him. So this act of observing The Lord’s Supper is a testimony (in picture form) and therefore also a “proclamation.”

[alex o.]

Andrew K wrote:

These were just posted.

Here are some resources (mp3 downloads) for anyone curious re. how Confessional Reformed Baptists view the ordinances and what we mean by “means of grace” language.

http://confessingbaptist.com/2014-founders-conf-sw-audio-now-online-the-…

Hi AndrewK,

Anything in writing? I’m looking for something to explain what “means of grace” signifies from the scriptures from the Reformed tradition. Not really wanting to spend hours listening over a few points.

To DavidO and Bert Perry,

Concerning the “proclamation”: What did the Old Covenant sacrifices accomplish? The book of Hebrews says the blood of bulls and goats did not take away sins, so what did they accomplish? I suggest those OT sacrifices pictured Christ’s once for all sacrifice and now, in remembering Christ (The Lord’s Supper), we picture our receiving Christ’s work for ourselves as the basis what gave us the New Life. I see no problem with a forward look by OT saints and a memorial look now. In my mind the picturing is the proclamation. This must be the reason why some were sick and also dying from slovenly picturing Christ’s sacrifice. Think of how solemn the OT pictures were in this regard that death could also feature from wrongly fulfilling the specific laws of the sacrifice. Yet those sacrifices never took away sins and, to my mind, the Lord’s Supper does not give grace anymore than any other act of faith the Christian performs.

So The Lord’s Supper can be viewed as an ‘identifying stand’ which functions as encouragement to other Christians to stand and also an ‘invitation’ to non-Christians to accept Him and His sacrifice for themselves. Think if you were earnestly witnessing to someone and then did something stupid like get drunk in front of them in connection with your witness. This, it seems, is what Paul was saying in 1Cor. 11: they were picturing and thus proclaiming Christ and then selfishly getting drunk. Also, the left out the poor when they may not even have had any ‘elements’ to observe this ordinance, but this may be somewhat speculative.

When observing The Lord’s Supper, one is giving their testimony of what Christ did for them and so “remembering” Him. So this act of observing The Lord’s Supper is a testimony (in picture form) and therefore also a “proclamation.”