The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum The Lord's Supper

Like most Churches, our Church is meeting Live-Stream.
Under the circumstances I believe this is warranted. However, my understanding of Scripture (and the Reformed Confessions) is that only an elder/pastor can administer the Lord's Supper. Many Churches that are live-streaming, are still doing the Lord's Supper. Although they partake together, I am not sure I would be comfortable doing it this way.
Thought?

Tom

One problem I see with live streaming is the impossibility of "fencing the table", i.e., there is no way that a person who is unqualified or restricted to partake of the table can be prevented from doing so by the Elders. I realize that this is doubtless more of a concern to me and others who hold that the Lord's Supper is not simply a "memorial/remembrance" but an actual sacrament where the Lord Christ is present through His Spirit to bless true believers and assure them that their salvation is unassailable because it is He, Christ who has purchased it for them.

If you are talking about what is often called "Close Communion"? This is exactly what I believe and it the main reason why I have a problem with doing it live stream.

Just so you know the 1689 LBCF says the Lord's Supper is more than just a memorial/remembrance. It actually has no problem calling it a "sacrament"; this is actually made clear by reading some of the writers of the 1689 LBCF such as Nehemiah Coxe. I am not sure if you have heard of Richard Barcellos, but he has written on this at https://founders.org/reviews/the-lords-supper-as-a-means-of-grace/
Also I know you are familiar with Samuel E. Waldron, in his 'A Modern Exposition 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith; Dr. Waldron also talks about this and the main reason why many do not not use the word "sacrament", is mainly because they wanted to avoid how Roman Catholics use the word. Mainly a superstitious form of sacramentalism which attributes saving efficiency to the sacraments.
Here is Richard Barcellos concerning practical applications of the Lord's Supper.

By the way, this is just information, I thought you may be interested in.
Funny thing about this, this is not something I learned as just a Calvinistic Baptist, for they taught that the Lord's Supper was just a memorial. I only learned this, after I became interested in the history of the Calvinist side of Baptists. It pointed mostly the early 1600s, then they wrote the 1st LBCF, then from the influence of the Savoy and the WCF, they wrote the 1689 LBCF.
Lately, I have been reading John Owen and Nehemiah Coxe. Good stuff!


Tom

And, there is a difference between "close" and "closed" communion. The later restricts access to the Table to members of the church/denomination in good standing only. The former will allow non-members, i.e., visitors IF they meet with the Elders beforehand and it is determined that they own a credible confession of faith, etc. That is my particular view.

Which in this case, I think you are saying I am correct for having a problem with taking the Lord's Supper "live-stream".

Tom

Tom, not to be argumentative, but I have checked many on-line copies of the 1689, and nowhere in chapters 28 and 30 (nor in the entire 1689) can I find 'sacrament', but only 'ordinance'. Did I misunderstand you, brother?

I did not say the 1689 LBCF uses the word "sacrament". In fact I even gave the reason why they did not use the word sacrament (see my comments concerning Samuel Waldron). Also, if you read more of the confession itself, you will see they did not believe 'The Lord's Supper" was just a memorial/ remembrance.

Tom

Tom, methinks that Meta4 questioned you about the LBCF using the word "sacrament" because of what you did actually write:

Seems clear enough to be also that, according to you, the LBCF uses the word "sacrament". It is probably true that some have interpreted the LBCF as teaching that the Lord's Supper/Communion is to be administered as if it was a sacrament or at least it should not be understood be simply a "memorial", aka: ordinance. But not being intimately familiar with the LBCF as you probably are, without reading it afresh, I cannot say one way or the other that it uses the word "sacrament" in regard to the Lord's Supper nor Baptism, which historically all other Reformed denominations do believe.

Pilgrim
Sorry, that was an error on my part, that I did not notice.
It is true that the confession does not use the word “sacrament”.
However, I gave the reasons for this..
Sorry for the confusion.

Tom

Not much worse than being misunderstood due to our obscuring what we are trying to convey, eh?

Pilgrim

One thing I am learning with age, I may gain more knowledge. But it sure does not stop my mistakes and memory lapses sometimes. Sigh...
Thinking through what caused my mistake. I think I was trying to say, that many who follow the 1689 LBCF have no problem calling, it a "sacrament", providing it is not understood in the same light RCs use it.

Tom

Thanks for the clarification, Tom. I wasn't trying to get your back up...

Actually, seeing my mistake; I can understand your confusion.

Cheers!

Tom