The Lord's Supper and Private Meditation

Robert Rayburn, in some teaching on The Lord's Supper at Faith Presbyterian Church, says:

It is not obvious from the Bible, nor, even, from the historic practice of the Christian church, nor even from the historic practice of Reformation churches, including our own Puritan/Presbyterian churches, that "silent communion, thanksgiving, intercession, and prayer" are an integral part of the biblical idea of the Lord's Supper. We said before that our service does encourage the communicant to think that private meditation is the key to the practice of the Lord's Supper.

But I have also suggested that it may well be that the reason we think that is simply that our form of taking the Lord's Supper leaves us sitting in our pews waiting for a good bit of the time. What else is to be done in such a situation but private meditation and prayer. Surely, there is never anything wrong with private meditation and prayer. But, nothing that is said in the NT either in its accounts of the original institution of the Supper the night of the Lord's betrayal or in its other statements about the Supper suggests that the Supper is a time or occasion for private meditation and prayer. All we are told, all we know is that it is the eating of the bread and the drinking of the wine as an act of faith in Christ present to feed and nourish our souls. Other forms of communion than pew communion have tended to stress the eating and drinking more than the meditation: table communion did - you came, sat down, listened, ate and drank, and got up - and so did communion at the front of the church - after the institution and prayer you rose and walked forward and the whole emphasis fell on the action of eating and drinking. Interestingly, this seems to have been the effect as well of having reading or singing during the actual communion. It precisely did not leave communicants alone with their thoughts and prayers.

Now, of course, we are not against prayer and meditation. The question is whether in the corporate service of worship and the corporate sacrament of the Lord's Supper private prayer and meditation is really what is called for. I do not think that the Scripture teaches us to think that it is. The communion is an eating and drinking.

What do you think?

Hostages in Afghanistan

Eugene Cho is posting updates on the Korean hostages in Afghanistan (HT: Jesus Creed).

Update:
From a news conference after the surviving captives had been released:

Han Ji-young recalled how the leader of the group, Bae Hyung-kyu, was led away to his death.

"One day, a Taleban called Bae and checked his first and last names and took him out of the room.

"Bae didn't even look at us when he was leaving the room. He only said 'Overcome with faith'," Ms Han said, in tears.

The Lord's Supper: Wine or Juice

Some people insist that wine be used in the Lord's Supper, not grape juice. Keith Mathison takes a four-part look at what he calls "Protestant Transubstantiation":

Part 1: Thesis; Biblical Witness.
Part 2: Historical Testimony.
Part 3: Historic Reformed & Baptist Testimony.
Part 4: Origins of and Reasons for the Rejection of Wine.

I agree that we should not reject the use of wine for the Lord's Supper. Personally, I try to be very careful with wine because I was a binge drinker in university and the taste of wine is still sweet. But I don't think that wine is sinful or evil, and I have no issue with its use.

On the other hand, I really can't understand the fuss between grape juice and wine. It seems to me the difference is one of degree rather than essence (i.e. they are both from grapes, the fruit of the vine). In fact, you can make wine from Welch's. But if one insists on wine, what % alcohol is acceptable? Can one use non-alcoholic wine (.5% alcohol or less)? Those may be absurd questions, but you know someone's going to ask them if we now go the other way and reject grape juice.

The Lord's Supper Weekly

Ray Van Neste has an article on Reinvigorating Baptist Practice of the Ordinances (pdf). Concerning the Lord's Supper, he advocates that we observe it weekly.

I am not here arguing that weekly celebration is a direct biblical command so that if we fail to do this we sin. I am arguing that this is the pattern in the New Testament and therefore would be best practice. In our man-centered age where so many services are shamefully devoid of any meaningful reference to the cross, could we not benefit from a move to a regular use of the Christ-ordained means for reminding us of the cross? In a day when we are so captivated by the allures of this age and seemingly interested merely in Our Best Life Now, do we not need regularly the Christ-ordained means of reminding us of the Lord’s return and the wedding feast of the Lamb? Might not the Bride be more pure if regularly reminded of the coming wedding?

Also, on his blog, Van Neste quotes A. Alexander on the Lord’s Supper:

As the Lord’s Supper is a memorial of the death of Christ, it should be celebrated often, so that this great sacrifice on which our salvation depends may not be forgotten, but kept in lively remembrance in the Christian church.

Update: Michael Spencer on Laugh or Else: The Reasons Baptists Give For Not Celebrating the Lord’s Supper More Often (HT and thank you for mention to lingalinga).

The Lord's Supper and Children

David Michael, in Why Can't I Have a 'Snack' Like Everyone Else? offers some thoughts on children and the Lord's Supper.

When people inquire about children taking the Lord's Supper, I have two perspectives to share with them. The first is that our communion services are open to all present, including children, who are:

• trusting in Jesus Christ alone for the forgiveness of their sins and the fulfillment of all his promises to us (including eternal life); and
• who intend to follow him as Lord and obey his commandments.

Therefore, children are welcome to participate in the Lord's Supper:

• when they can understand its significance;
• when they are able to give a credible profession of faith in Christ;
• and when they consciously intend to follow the Lord in obedience.

There is no test they take or class they attend to help establish their readiness. We simply leave it up to parents to decide when their young disciples are ready.

The second perspective that Michael goes on to share is a more personal response. Read the rest of the article for some of the things he and his wife "waited" for before they decided their own children were ready to participate.

My Blog Collection: Book Reviews

Some book reviews and recommendations:

1. Scot McKnight on House Church and Mission by Roger Gehring.

2. Tim Challies on Jesus the Evangelist by Richard Phillips.

3. Rielly McLaren on Engaging with God by David Peterson.

4. Nick Kennicott on Outgrowing the Ingrown Church by C. John Miller.

5. Ray Pritchard on Winston and Franklin by Jon Meacham.

Amazing Grace and Good Works

This thought came to mind this morning: My good works are not what I do in addition to God's grace to make my salvation complete, but my good works are what God does by his grace to show that my salvation is complete.

Who Can Participate in the Lord's Supper

There are many views on who can participate in the Lord's Supper.

Nathan Finn has a post on The Relationship Between Baptism and the Lord’s Supper: Four Views. He provides a summary of different forms of open and closed communion.

Jim Elliff explains why (with a few exceptions) they "include those who have been received into the circle of authority and responsibility of our local church concerning church discipline—in other words, those who are members of our church."

Robert Rayburn wonders why we only "fence" the Lord's Supper.

Why don't we warn the impenitent at the very beginning of the service that just as they ought not to participate in the Lord's Supper if they are not earnest Christians, neither should they participate in any other part of our worship.

Eric Svendsen advocates unbelievers can participate (see an excerpt from his series - but after reflecting on this for quite a while, I would differ from Svendsen in this way: I see the command and the symbolism in the bread and the cup, not the entire meal. Thus everyone is welcome to participate in the meal, but the bread and the cup are for believers only).

I hold to what is generally called "open communion." All who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior and God are called to participate in the bread and the cup.

The Lord's Supper as a Meal

One of the things happening in house churches (and others) is a return to celebrating the Lord's Supper as part of a meal. Here are a few articles on the topic:

Observing The Lord’s Supper by Brian Anderson.

The Lord's Supper - Feast or Famine? by Steve Atkerson.

Concluding Thoughts to the Lord's Supper Series by Eric Svendsen.

I am all for the Lord's Supper being observed in conjunction with a meal. However, I think we should make a distinction between what Christ commanded (to eat the bread and drink of the cup) and the practice of the early church (a meal or love feast). In other words, it's not a sin not to have a meal, though I believe it is a good practice for the church to re-adopt.

The Lord's Supper: Body and Blood of Christ

In this message, Why We Eat the Lord's Supper, Part 1, John Piper gives four reasons why "This is my body" does not mean Jesus' physical body materializes in the bread. He then explains the positive meaning of "This is my body" and "This is my blood."

So, even though I think it is dangerously wrong to say that the bread and the blood turn into the physical, incarnate body of Jesus, nevertheless, I am not saying that what happens in the Lord's Supper is mere, intellectual recall of facts. The supper proclaims. And faith comes by hearing and seeing and tasting that proclamation. And faith is a spiritual feasting on the risen, living Christ so that all that God is for us in him satisfies our soul, and sweetens our love for him, and breaks the power of sin in our lives.

The Lord's Supper

This month's focus is on the ordinances. In the second half of the month, I'll be linking to resources on the Lord's Supper. First is Don Carson's message, A Discussion on Communion (mp3).

The outline of the message:

1. The Lord's Supper is a center and symbol of Christian unity.
2. The Lord's Supper is a time to remember.
3. The Lord's Supper is a proclamation of the Lord's death.
4. The Lord's Supper is a temporary ordinance.
5. The Lord's Supper provides regular opportunity for self-examination.
6. The Lord's Supper can be dangerous.

Concerning the Lord's Supper as a proclamation of the Lord's death, Carson gives this example of what might be said evangelistically:

If you're in off the street tonight and you've never seen a Christian communion service, you're going to think this is a little bizarre. So let me explain what is going on here. We believe Jesus gave his body to bear our sins, that he shed his blood, giving his life that we might be forgiven. And he gave us a simple rite like this by which to recall corporately what he gave that we might be forgiven. Now, if you're not a Christian, don't take the elements. It's a kind of contradiction in terms when you say, "I remember" when you don't remember. You don't know the Lord, but you ought to watch how Christians think about the death of Christ and want to be drawn back to that death again and again, on which they fasten all their hopes for reconciliation with God, for the removal of their sins, for forgiveness, for their hope of eternal life. We remember. So watch as the church of Jesus Christ, the people of God, remember his death.

Some Literature on Baptism

In the comments of a recent post James from Idle Musings of a Bookseller mentioned the book Infant Baptism in Historical Perspective: Collected Studies by David F. Wright. Looks interesting.

A while back Jim Hamilton posted about the book Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, edited by Tom Schreiner and Shawn Wright (I guess this means you can't go to the bookstore and say you want Wright's book on baptism). Justin Taylor interviewed Tom Schreiner. One question and answer from the interview:

It seems to me that in the NT, baptism followed almost immediately after a profession of faith--with little time for instruction, confirmation that their faith was genuine, etc. Yet it also seems to me that those churches that practice instant baptisms upon initial professions of faith also seem to produce a lot of nominal Christians. What are you thoughts?

That’s a great question and it doesn’t have an easy answer. I think we have to consider the difference between the NT era and our culture in the United States. In the NT the Christian faith was clearly distinct from the culture, and hence baptism was a dramatic indication that one had given his life to the one true God and to Jesus Christ. Baptism was not culturally acceptable but distinguished someone remarkably from their culture. When we think of our culture today, we know that it is more and more post-Christian. Still, baptism is part of the cultural landscape. Many people in our culture mistakenly identify being an American with being a Christian. Therefore, I think it is wise to instruct converts in our context before immediately baptizing them. In that way we can discern better whether someone’s profession of faith is genuine.

Finally, the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology devoted an edition to The Doctrines of Baptism and Assurance. Especially check out "Baptism and Becoming a Christian in the New Testament" by Robert H. Stein (I wonder how he would answer Taylor's question about "instant baptisms").

The cardinal problem with most views on baptism today is that the five components integrally associated with conversion in the New Testament are now separated in time. Roman Catholic theology, for instance, recognizes that regeneration and baptism belong together. It teaches that baptism brings about regeneration as well as the forgiveness of sins, especially of “original” sin. In so doing, however, it divorces baptism and regeneration from the human components of the conversion experience—repentance, faith, and confession. Thus it seriously deviates from the New Testament pattern.

Lutheran theology also recognizes that baptism and regeneration belong together. Like Roman Catholic theology it believes in baptismal regeneration. It also, however, recognizes that in the New Testament faith cannot be divorced from either. As a result, because of its support of infant baptism, it argues that God supernaturally gives the gift of faith (fides infantilis) to the infant being baptized. The Lutheran view has the problem of seeking to find exegetical justification in the New Testament for attributing saving faith to nursing infants. Even apart from this, however, it still deviates from the New Testament understanding because it divorces repentance and confession from the other components of conversion.

Reformed theology deviates even more significantly from the New Testament pattern in that it separates baptism from all the other components of conversion. Based on the doctrines of predestination and divine election, baptism is seen as a “seal” of the covenant of grace and identifies the recipients of infant baptism as members of the body of Christ. The baptism of infants is done with the view toward and hope of future repentance-faith-confession. Infant baptism, however, cannot guarantee that repentance-faith-confession-regeneration will follow, and in the majority of instances where infants are baptized it is evident that it does not. Yet even if the practice of infant baptism could guarantee that the other components of the conversion experience would follow, and it clearly cannot, the Reformed understanding of baptism would still err in separating what in the New Testament presents as a unit.

Baptist theology also deviates from the New Testament pattern. Although repentance, faith, confession, and regeneration are associated with baptism, baptism is separated in time from these four components. Thus baptism is an act which witnesses to a prior experience of repentance, faith, confession, and regeneration. As a result such passages as Romans 6:4, 1 Peter 3:21, Titus 3:5, John 3:3ff., and others, which associate baptism with the experience of conversion, are embarrassing to many Baptists and often receive a strained exegesis at their hands.

Don't Forget the Lyrics - Church Version

We were visiting a church last Sunday and the soloist sang "His Eye Is on the Sparrow."

After the service, my one son (who wasn't familiar with the song) was baffled by what he heard. "I thought she was saying, 'I sin because I'm happy, I sin because I'm free.'"

My other son: "Now, that's taking Christian liberty a little far."

Improving Baptism

Thanks to Tim Bahula for pointing me to Jim Elliff's article on Improving Baptism.

Since water baptism is so important to the churches, I want to put forward a few ideas that may help churches make more of this important symbolic act. What I'm suggesting is in the way of pastoral advice, not doctrine. You can take or leave these ideas, but in my own experience and through information received from many pastors over the years, these suggestions could make this experience much more memorable and effective. Most of these suggestions will apply to those who meet in typical church buildings, but some will apply, or can be adapted, for churches that meet in homes.

Baptism and the Forgiveness of Sins

R. Bruce Compton has an article on Water Baptism and the Forgiveness of Sins in Acts 2:38 (pdf) in the Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal. He examines five interpretations of the passage:

(1) Baptism as a condition for salvation, normative for the Church;
(2) Baptism as a condition for salvation, not normative for the Church;
(3) Baptism as a parenthetical remark, not directly related to salvation;
(4) Baptism as a sign of conversion-initiation, the evidence of genuine repentance;
(5) Baptism as a consequence of salvation, not a condition for salvation.

Compton favors the last view; I lean towards the fourth view. Compton raises this question concerning the fourth view:

Either water baptism is the necessary expression of saving faith, apart from which forgiveness is not received, or water baptism is not necessary. But if it is not essential ... then how does the expression “for the forgiveness of sins” represent the purpose or goal of both “repent” and “be baptized?”

I have other questions that I'm working through:

- What are the implications of "baptism-as-the-evidence-of-genuine-repentance" for the assurance of salvation?
- If baptism is the evidence of genuine repentance, how soon should a person be baptized after they profess faith in Christ?
- And what about children who profess faith in Christ? Should we ask young children to wait before they are baptized?

Baptism and Church Membership

Is Baptism a Requirement for Church Membership? by Daryl Wingerd and Jim Elliff.

If one is referring to local church membership, on the other hand, physical baptism is the "door." This form of membership must be granted by other Christians (Matthew 18:18-20). It is not automatically bestowed on the new believer by the Holy Spirit at conversion. It can even be refused by a local congregation when they are not convinced that genuine conversion has occurred (cf. Acts 9:26-27). And unlike membership in the universal church, local church membership can be renounced through the authoritative disciplinary action of the same local church that granted it (cf. Matthew 18:15-17; 1 Corinthians 5:11-13).

Church Membership and Different Views of Baptism

Can you have a church that holds to both believers baptism and infant baptism?

Wayne Grudem in an interview with Adrian Warnock explained why he no longer thought this was possible.

But now I’m beginning to realize that admitting to church membership someone who has not been baptized upon profession of faith, and telling the person that he or she never has to be baptized as a believer, is really giving up one’s view on the proper nature of baptism, what it really is. It is saying that infant baptism really is valid baptism! If we didn’t think it was valid baptism, we should be telling people who were baptized as infants that their “baptism” was not valid baptism and they should be baptized now, after their personal profession of faith. They would need to do this in obedience to Christ’s command.

Jeremy R. Pierce, on the other hand, argued for Credobaptism and Paedobaptism: A Mediating Position.

My congregation takes the view that neither view can so clearly be shown from scripture as to justify practicing only one of them. Parents are given the option of (1) baptizing their children as infants and then having a confirmation if that child turns out to become a faithful Christian upon reaching an age when such a thing can be discovered or (2) dedicating their children as infants, leaving baptism to be pursued at a later date when genuine commitment to Christ is clear enough.

A while back Bethlehem Baptist Church, pastored by John Piper, considered moving in the direction of accepting paedobaptists into membership at Bethlehem. The church elders subsequently withdrew the motion. You can still read the original document on Baptism and Church Membership (pdf).

Jim Hamilton provided an insight from Baptist history when the Bethlehem controversy was going on.

Views of Baptism

I hold to believers baptism by immersion. There are others who hold a different perspective. These articles discuss the differences:

Tim Challies, Baptism: Sacrament or Ordinance? - examines the Reformed and Baptist views of baptism.

R. Scott Clark, A Contemporary Reformed Defense of Infant Baptism - includes a helpful summary of the different views of baptism.

John Piper, Brothers, Magnify the Meaning of Baptism - I found his defense of believers baptism to be very helpful.

Zwingli and Calvin and their heirs have treated signs of the covenant as if no significant changes happened with the coming of Christ. But God is forming His people today differently than when He strove with an ethnic people called Israel. The people of God are no longer formed through natural kinship, but through supernatural conversion to faith in Christ.

With the coming of John the Baptist and Jesus and the apostles, the emphasis now is that the spiritual status of your parents does not determine your membership in the covenant community. The beneficiaries of the blessings of Abraham are those who have the faith of Abraham. These are the ones who belong to the covenant community.

And these are the ones who should receive the sign of the covenant: believer baptism.

July Topic: Two Ordinances

I hold to two church ordinances: Baptism and the Lord's Supper (Communion). Those are the topics for this month. The first half of the month, it'll be baptism.