Lord's Supper in private?

Grace and David,

Good posts!

Bible-boy,

I don't often agree with you, but you made me laugh with that one, and I apperciate it! So, I stand corrected--but tell me, how did all the disciples fit into one Honda Accord? Don't you think it would have been just a little crowded?

Larry and Dr. Bob,

Anytime two or more believers come together for worship, there is the church--but you probably disagree.

 

I didn't mean to imply that a pool party was a church meeting. Sorry if you misunderstood what I was trying to say.

Whenever believers gather together, whether it be a husband and wife, children, family, brother, sister, etc., for the purpose of remembering the Lord through His supper, nothing in scripture forbids them from doing so.

How precious for a family to spend an evening together in remembrance of our Lord Jesus through His supper.

I have had the blessing of partaking in the traditonal way, that is, with the pastor officiating from the pulpit while the deacons served the congregation, and I have had the blessing of gathering with only two other brothers in close communion in the downstairs of the church building where we allowed the Spirit of God free reign to minister to one another as we sang hymns, read scripture and reflected on the Lord Jesus Christ who truly had the preeminence. As one brother was led, he would brake and serve the bread. Then we would sing another hymn or two, read and relfect upon scripture, and another brother would minister in serving the cup. No rush, no rigidy. It is a true blessing and precious.

I would like to begin to celebrate the Lord's supper as a full feast. I believe that would be a foretaste of that wonderful marriage supper we will all partake of. Glorious!

 

Good one...

 

Yup, but it is different because of your motives and what you have set that time aside for. That might be one of the reasons the Apostle states that the married man is "interested" in the things of the World (how he can please his wife). You need to do that for her, it is right to do it for her sake. I am not saying you are wrong at all, I'm just emphasizing my view. Would coming over to your place always be an invasion of you and your family's time? If times were really tough (I mean really tough) I think you would change your mind. But this is America and times are not tough here. But maybe times really are tougher than you think here.

But what if, every hour of every day, anywhere you were, you and your household were always ready, maybe even desirous for church (an assembly of believers) or ministry? If you were at home you would always (within reason) be willing to receive guests and minister in the name of the Lord. What if you were 100 percent devoted to the ministry? You would be inviting believers to your private home too. It would be intimate and it would be work and a lot of needs that cannot be met on Sunday mornings could be met. They could even come and not expect to have an offering plate passed under their noses. You wouldn't do that at your home would you? I mean pass the plate at your home?

At home you wouldn't use those little wafers and those tiny little cups for the Lord's Supper would you? That would be embarrassing.

At your home, you wouldn't make people worship and sing your songs if they didn't really want to would you? I hope not. If you did they would talk about you. You wouldn't stand up in front of your living room and preach to your guests would you?



Dave

 

You make a good point. You do it gently and with tact. I mark you as a spiritual person for that.

Reading between the lines, you seem to be saying: God looks on the heart and considers the circumstances.

You seem to affirm the procedure under "special" circumstances. Nevertheless, I perceive an implication that only some have authority to administer an ordinance. This makes me uncomfortable.

I don't just automatically assume that a church with momentum is more right on issues. I've made that mistake too many times. It's very painful and easy to remember. I have been "thrown away", discarded and disregarded often. Often if not always I am one of the least in the congregation. It may be by God's design that I be one of the least, while still maintaining my zeal for him. If I can find it in my heart to be content with that, I might actually find my way (smile).

According to scripture, I perceive that we have all been made sons of God. I don't see where any born again believer is excluded. That should entitle any of us to deliver the ordinances of God responsibly.

I perceive also that without individuals there is no church. I see no instruction in scripture regarding the number of individuals required to make a church (Do you)? There is scripture though that mentions "Where two or three are gathered in my name..." and I give that scriputre much consideration and meditation. I do put it to the test. I mean, I try to prove it as applicable today. So to me the individuals are more important. The more comely parts are actually supposed to be given more honor. To me, it seems backward today. The Apostle wanted to show this by picking someone least in the congregation to make judgments on current issues. It was for their shame the Apostle said that. But I think he was on to something.

Where were the good folks at Laodicea going to go after they heard the revelation with their ears? Stay there, endure but not partake of the evil? Or go to the church across the street? They apparently lived in a free society too. I must listen to that same revelation and not ignore it. It does apply to me also.

As I understand it, We have each been given different diversities of gifts to profit withal. We have not been given different diversities of authority. I feel it is Anti-Christian to use authority to motivate folks. I perceive that no one should say or think: Our group is more right that your group or our group "trumps" you as an individual. If three, four or 50 religious folks disagree with me, it doesn't automaticaly make them right.

This freedom we have here is wonderful. But have you ever noticed how very hard times seem to pull folks together? A disaster passes but the pulling together lasts and that is the wonderful thing. I long for that pulling together. It tends to make me think fondly for hard times, it tends to make me long for calculated persecution, but I honestly don't want that. So I strive not to be lulled by a free society and too much peace. I must be diligent not to be lulled. To the Clergy, if I am not careful about my attitude, I can appear rebellious when I am not rebellious.

So I take a deeper, closer look and I never fail to plead for wisdom on these matters.

I minister at a wonderful baptist church, I am more often on my guard there than when I am at work though I am very much on my guard at work. That is backward to me and it signifies that I need to keep taking a deeper look at things.

Have you ever examined those who are false teachers or even teachers who do not "teach themselves"? I am sometimes perplexed why God allows them to continually prosper and even remain prominent. But he obviously does. I would rather he would discipline them like he so readily disciplines me. I cannot seem to get away with anything. Not one single thing does he seem to allow me to get away with, but the false teachers prosper. Why is that? I perceive that, it comes down to being my responsibility to discern and his Holy Spirit that is my teacher, that God is my Father and the one that he sent is my savior and Lord.

Hypothetically speaking; If others who did what Jesus commanded are called his friends, can I not hope that Jesus would call me his friend, if I also do what he said? If I was a friend of him who is seated on the right hand of God, would I not be qualified to deliver his ordinances also?

Dave.

 

Dr. Bob,

If you all are just "sitting home", you're right--you're not functioning as a church. But if you come together for worship, you are the church, unless you believe the church does not and cannot exist without clergy and institutionalism. The earliest churches were house churches--families and other believers who worshipped in their homes. There is no evidence that all such informal groups had officers such as elders and deacons.

 

Greetings!

We are members of His body. 1 Cor 6:15, Eph 5:30, 1:22-23; His temple. 1 Cor 3:16-17, 6:19, etc. You know the verses.

This being true, we cannot disengage ourselves from it. As individual believers with the Holy Spirit dwelling in us, we make up the church. This is true of myself, my wife, and my children. Should we desire to remember our Saviour with His supper, we have every honor and privilege to do so.

Priscilla and Aquila -- "greet the church that is in their house" Paul says in Romans 16. Who made up that church? Well, we know that at least two did. Was it anything less than a church if they and their children (if they had any) were the only members of His body that showed up on Sunday morning? What if they called for a meeting during the weeknight, but no one was able to come but the family? Would it still be "church?"

What about Nymphas and the church which is in his house.? Col 4:16

What about Philemon and his house?

What constitutes the church in these homes? The number of attendees? Offices? Is it only a church if the members are not made up of only family members? Is it church polity that establishes it? (If so, we need to step back and take a serious look at the popular system in which we find our churches functioning)

The ordinances, established and given not by the church, but by the Head of the church, are not to be hijacked by the clergy. You simply cannot support that notion with the Bible.

It seems to me, and I say this with a kind and concerned heart, that we have in some measure departed from the apostolic example laid out in the Bible in regards to the church.

 

To refer to the New testament where it refers to the "house" one must consider the cultural setting at the time. Certainly the "church" was in the house. Where else could they meet. That, however, does not define the church. The church was a definite meeting of the saints, and not just a get together. As history unfolds, the church body grows and eventually meeting places form...sometimes in the sewers of Rome, but it was still an assembly of the saints for the purpose of holding "church".

Where two or three are gathered,,Jesus said,THERE am I in the midst,,,speaking of His relationship to the believer, and not the church assembly.

It was never intended that Christians should celebrate in isolation, but always as an assembly.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Hello!

And who is to say a family has no privilege to gather together in their home as a church assembly? I find nothing wrong with isolation. A thousand or a few can meet in isolation. Do you celebrate the Lord's Supper in isolation with the saints or do you welcome unbelievers into the fold?

They could have met anywhere and it would still have been the church.

Never said it did. The church are the believers themselves. How to function as a body is expressed by apostolic example in the Bible.

 

Jim,

If two believers in a house came together for worship, they were an assembly.

 

So long as one is selected to be the pastor. The New Testament always speaks of pastors, elders, bishops as being the leader of a church.

Cheers,

Jim

 

The original question was "Someone asked me if it was ok to partake of the Lord's Supper in private."

Can you give a SCRIPTURAL reason why two believers cannot assemble to remember the Lord through His Supper?

 

Hi, a couple of years ago my family and I went to a pastor's retreat. There we rented a cabin, hiked and fished through the day and then met around a campfire (just my family) and had devotions, and sang songs. On the night before we left, we went out on the back porch, overlooking the most beautiful scenary on God's planet, and partook of the Lord's Supper. It was a very moving experience and that night my youngest son (age 6) gave his heart to the Lord.
BTW I may be nailed for this, but we used grape juice and Graham crackers. Was it wrong? Maybe from a "local" church view point. Was Christ pleased? All I can say was that he was there in our midst blessing us. I guess I'll know on judgement day. I just can't understand why it would be wrong for a family, during family altar, to worship Christ in this way.
p.s. our church practices open communion and believes in the universal church.

 

tinytim,

It is not wrong, even if considered that by those who think they know better than the Holy Spirit.

 

I agree

 

Isn't it nice doing something like this together as a family, didn't you feel a different kind of closeness...I just love that feeling....In the bible it doesn't indicate that pastors or bishop or deacons are responsible for giving of the communion it does say: 1 Corinthians 11:26
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come
How often would you like take part? I want more than once a month

 

"There is sufficient proof to convince any close student of church history of the first three centuries, that in the very earliest ages, the Lord's Supper was regarded as strictly a church ordinances, as we have defined the phrase." T.F. Curtis

(Thomas Fenner Curtis {1816-1872} was a Southern Baptist pastor, author, and professor. He pastored the First Baptist Church of Tuscaloosa, Alabama from 1843 to 1848, taught at Howard College, as well as the University of Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. In 1850 he authored his very influential work "Communion: the Distinction between Christian and Church Fellowship, and between Communion and its Symbols", which was published by the American Baptist Publication Society. The above quote is from page 88 of this work.

Cheers,

Jim