Note: In no way am I stating that I am absolutely correct in the things written in this post. However, they are concerns that I have had for a while now, and I feel no harm in addressing them. Leave either a comment on the blog, on my social network, or on my email if you have answers or concerns with what I am addressing. Hopefully, if nothing else, it will help you think. --JE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
No, this is not going to be a post about "The Princess Bride"--that would be 'inconceivable.' But sometimes when we read words in Scripture (in this case "added to [the church]"), we tend to interpret the definition in light of what we want it to mean, or have been taught that it means. To do so without looking at the larger picture, as well as the whole of Scripture is unwise. Looking at the whole picture of Scripture is as imperative as "building up an immunity to iocane powder."
* * *
Everyone will agree that the Lord's Table is a church ordinance; that is, it is something given to the church by Jesus Christ. What is 'the church'? The church is a group of believers, or disciples, that come together in local church 'bodies' across the world in order to corporately worship God through song, prayer, reading and the sacraments.
It should also be simple to see from a study of Scripture that the bread and cup that are partaken of do not change form into the literal body and blood of the Messiah, as Catholicism would indicate. We are to "do this in remembrance"--as a picture. This is an illustration that we are commanded to continue "until he comes."
Many of the churches I have had contact with, however, seem to put a barrier upon the Lord's Table. It is agreed that the Table is a church ordinance and is "merely" a symbol of Christ's sacrifice. However, they also add that believing on Christ is not enough to participate in this ordinance--official church membership is also necessary before accessing this sacrament.
* * *
I have difficulty with that conclusion.
First, look at who Christ Himself first had the Communion table with--the disciples. At that time, these men were part of no organized and constituted church. The early church was not established until around the time of Pentecost, which we find account of in Acts chapter 2. Were the disciples taking the supper with Jesus "in an unworthy manner" (1 Cor. 11) ? Of course not. Who were the disciples?
They were believers and followers of Jesus Christ. And as such, they partook in a remembrance of Christ.
Second, observe the early church. It is clear that there is Scriptural command towards local bodies of churches--that is not to be disputed. But what people made up these churches? These are nothing more than groups of believers and followers of Jesus that bring themselves together in a certain place for worship. Words in Scripture such as "added that day" or "when you come together" do not indicate any sort of official membership courses, titles, or positions. It is an "adding" to the Body of Christ--an adding which makes itself manifest as these new believers begin anchoring themselves in continued coming to the gathering of Christians where they are at.
The similarities between what I am saying and the beliefs stated earlier are great. There is much the same thought in regards to the sacrament: it's a church ordinance, it's only for believers, etc.
The main difference is that it is denied to believers and followers of Jesus, who continue striving to follow him personally while corporately they do "not forsake the assembling of ourselves together." Why? Because they have not completed "formal church membership."
These are Christians, believers, and disciples--the very ones Christ first instituted the Supper with, and the very same that were part of the early church believers. There is nothing in the early church, as we see it in Acts, that indicates any type of "formal membership." It was enough that they "continue to grow in grace" as they "keep the faith" as believers and followers of Jesus.
And as believers in Christ, they were permitted to partake of Christ's Communion in their local body.
The requirements of the early church should not be added to.
Hi J.E.
ReplyDeleteThese are some good things to consider. Sadly, there are a number of distortions as the Lord's Table is thought of and practiced today - either a too low view of it or a rigid, ritual view of it that does not really express its importance. I think part of the rationale that developed in early church history & followed during the Reformation is that baptism came first as a public identification with Christ and the church and the Lord's Table as a sustaining ordinance (or means of grace) to persevere in one's faith. Holiness of life and progress in grace were expected (more so than today) and so more stringent requirements were laid down for regulating the Table. Calvin's view was "If there is nothing in heaven or earth of greater value and dignity than the body and blood of our Lord, it is no small error to take it inconsiderately and without being well prepared." (Short Treatise on the Holy Supper) and so this required the active oversight of the elders. Part of being well prepared was to be a member in good standing.
If you look at John Calvin's extensive writings you will find that the Lord's table is much more than a symbol or mere anything - it is a communion ( a koinonia 1 Cor. 10) by the Holy Spirit with Christ in heaven that nourishes and strengthens us. The greater problem is that many Baptists have adopted Zwingli's view of the Table instead of the historic Reformed view. Calvin also thought the Lord's table ought to be weekly as it was also part of nourishing the faith as was preaching. Consider this from Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion 4, Chapter 17. Of the Lord's Supper, and the benefits conferred by it." This view was confirmed in the Westminster & London Baptist Confessions.
"To summarise: our souls are fed by the flesh and blood of Christ in the same way that bread and wine keep and sustain physical life. For the analogy of the sign applies only if souls find their nourishment in Christ—which cannot happen unless Christ truly grows into one with us, and refreshes us by the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood.
Even though it seems unbelievable that Christ’s flesh, separated from us by such great distance, penetrates to us, so that it becomes our food, let us remember how far the secret power of the Holy Spirit towers above all our senses, and how foolish it is to wish to measure His immeasureableness by our measure. What, then our mind does not comprehend, let faith conceive: that the Spirit truly unites things separated in space.
Now, that sacred partaking of His flesh and blood, by which Christ pours His life into us, as if it penetrated into our bones and marrow, He also testifies and seals in the Supper—not by presenting a vain and empty sign, but by manifesting there the effectiveness of His Spirit to fulfil what He promises. And truly He offers and shows the reality there signified to all who sit at that spiritual banquet, although it is received with benefit by believers alone, who accept such great generosity with true faith and gratefulness of heart."
Sadly many believers, Baptist or otherwise miss out on the blessing God intended the Table to be for us.
First, I love the bobblehead picture. :-)
ReplyDeleteSecond, it is evident that Calvin found the Communion to be a most necessary part of the Christian's life. If I am not mistaken, he at one point ran to the front of his church and grabbed the instruments of the supper to protect them from one who would have disgraced them...or maybe I'm getting my dead theologians wrong.
Not the first time!
My biggest concern is the notion of "official" membership. I see "membership" obviously not officially stated in Acts...yet the "membership" those churches experienced SEEM to be groups of believers in Christ that consistently attended their local gathering of "the Way." It was enough that they believed (though I will say that baptism does seem to be a pre-requisite, as a public declaration of their commitment to Christ...not necessarily an entering into anything "church-wise" as far as a membership outside the general and consistent gathering).
For example, I do not partake at my church...I am not an "official" member. But I have displayed spiritual maturity, spiritual fruit, and heavy indications of my belief in the Messiah (which match what the early church attenders would have been--namely, disciples). Yet, I would be prohibited from Communion (AND baptism), until a "membership course" was completed to make "membership" "official."
That's what I was getting at in the post...I feel like that is asking more than the early church asked.
But I very well may be wrong! Love getting comments on here though. Growth in knowledge and grace! :-)
I think my response went off on a tangent of mine own. But I think I understand your point. However, I don't see why there might be any hesitation as to baptism if you have genuine faith. Most churches then & now have a formal process which I think is necessary and doesn't add or detract from New Testament belief or practice. Even a gun club has requirements & I think being formally identified with a local fellowship is important.
ReplyDeleteNot trying to play devil's advocate...but could you give me and example of the formal processes used in the early church? If that is true, then I definitely need to re-consider my position (which is based on the lack of formality found in Acts).
ReplyDeleteAnd you are correct in the historical practice of baptism. I don't think it changes my argument, but is definitely seen as a part of early church life...and is something I am beginning to pursue.
(late response)
ReplyDeleteJosh -
There is not simply one verse. There doesn’t have to be as I think that’s a red herring. I think it’s a matter of putting together what different passages seem to indicate – as has been done in regards to the Trinity. Conversion, repentance, faith & baptism are the entrance to the church which is always local – meaning hearing and believing do not happen in a vacuum, they happen because a local church is doing what it’s supposed to - discipline. Baptism is performed usually by leaders (elders, pastors) or by those under their direction. Determining who are the genuine believers and appropriate candidates for baptism (as best may be discerned by spiritual fruit and evidence of faith and understanding of the truth) is the duty of the leadership and congregation (as is true when discipline or expulsion is necessary). I have seen this done formally (classes) and informally (one-on-one discipleship). It not so much how but that it’s done. When this is done openly and publicly it is a public affirmation of the person’s faith and acceptance of covenant bonds with & by that body. Since in the Acts church there was only one congregation and everyone was a convert this was easy. When the church grew larger and splintered it was more challenging. The early church introduced letters (Acts 15:25, 18:27; 1 Cor. 16:10; Rom. 16:1; Col.4:10, 2 Cor. 8:22) to introduce those of another geographical location to a different one which was their way of saying “we know this guy & believe he’s genuine.” I think the role of requiring an examination of a convert’s faith before baptism is similar, prudent and does not violate Scripture or apostolic practice.