If a 'church' does not rightly observe the ordinances, is it still a church?

The Lord's Supper was actually probably just the bread/wine part of it. That is the "ordinance" since that is what has symbolic meaning and illustrative value. The fellowship meal that was had at the church at Corinth was not necessarily a part of the communion ordinance. That is why most Baptist churches don't have the two together. However, most Baptist churches do have regular dinners.

 

I believe the Agape Meal is the same thing as the Lord's Supper. In scripture, the Lord's Supper is an actual meal.

I looked up the Greek word for 'supper' and it means 'supper.' They ate a supper, and not 'the Lord's snack.' (I say snack, because I am not sure how to spell <or durv>.)

 

Hors d'oeuvre

Yours in Christ (and pedantically)

Matt

 

But when you read the text of SCripture, the bread and cup (which are the elements of communion) took place after supper. IN other words, the supper itself is not a part of the Lord's Supper.

One important point about ordinances that is being overlooked is that an ordinance must have symbolism of saving. The bread and cup have that symbolism. Fried chicken and hors d'oeuvres do not.

The meal at the church was not a part of the Lord's Supper per se. In fact, the behavior during that meal (some gorging, some going hungry) is what led to some taking the Lord's Supper wrongly. In other words, their misconduct prior to the Lord's Supper (bread and cup) led to the bread and cup being taken illegitimately.

 

The Traditional Modern Day Church

The Lord’s Supper is observed monthly, quarterly, or annually.

The Lord’s Supper is observed with a piece of cracker and a sip of juice.

The Lord’s Supper is observed in a solemn funeral-like atmosphere as the worshippers reflect on Christ’s sufferings and death. The believer’s vertical relationship with Christ is emphasized.

The New Testament Church

The Lord’s Supper was observed as often as the church regularly gathered and was the stated purpose for their meetings.
(Acts 20:7; 1Cor.11:18-20,33)

The Lord’s Supper was observed as a full meal.
(Acts 2:42,46; 1Cor.11:20-21; Jude 12)

The Lord’s Supper was observed with glad and sincere hearts as the church not only reflected on Christ’s death, but also on the future marriage supper of the Lamb which it depicted. The believer’s horizontal relationship with other believers was emphasized.
(Acts 2:46; Luke 22:15-18,30; 1Cor.11:26; Acts 2:42; 1Cor.10:16)

The differences in the Lord's Supper is just one of the many differences from the New Testament Church and today's Church. Brian Anderson at Milpitas Bible Fellowship has created a chart that lists differences from the New Testament Church and today's more Traditional Church:

The Traditional Church Vs. The NT Church

 

Pastor Larry is right about this. The Lord's Supper followed the meal and was not necessarily a part of it. We receive no commandment, to my recollection, to have a fellowship meal preceding the Lord's Supper. As Larry pointed out, Paul's commandment concerning the Lord's Supper focused upon the abuses involved in the fellowship meal.

That said, surely the Lord's Supper ought to be more than a five-minute postscript to the morning worship. There should be a substantive and reverential focus upon this remembrance of the substitutionary atonement of Christ.

Concerning other practices in Baptist history, only the Lord's Supper and baptism have universally been accepted as ordinances. I suspect that foot washing alone has been a third practice accepted as an ordinance, and that only by a minority. Certainly head coverings have never been considered an ordinance.

The original post concerning the legitimacy of a church in practicing rightly the two ordinances, the question is over "rightly," and I suspect that won't be answered to everyone's satisfaction. Baptist churches used to call churches which practice paedo-baptism "religious societies" instead of churches.

In our day, though, I think we have even more basic issues with which to contend. Church growth pragmaticism in Baptist churches has destroyed the concept of a regenerate church membership. The pastor is seen as a glorified CEO than a shephered of souls. Churches typically have several times more members on their rolls than they have attendance at worship. Before the 20th century, Baptist churches would discipline such non-attenders. That realization leads me to what many consider the third necessity for a body to be considered a true church: discipline.

Bill

 

When Christ instituted it, it was at the end of the Passover ritual. The meal had been eaten, and He picked up the cup, and gave it new meaning. In fact, He added a new section to the Seder, or ritual, that most modern Jews actually incorporate into their Seder, but they have no idea why. The theory is that ancient Jews who were believers in Jesus did what Jesus did, and the custom became a part of the mainstream Haggadah, or service.

So to me, "as oft as YE drink this cup," means annually at Passover. That is not to say that we can't remember the event more often, and in the way we chose. Christ is honored in any remembrance. My church does the monthly-at-the-end-of-the-service thing, and that's fine. I would not say that we all have to observe Passover (my house would never pass the "clean" test!), just that that is what was meant at the time, showing the apostles the correlation of the Passover and His death.

 

Jonathan, I think Anderson's reasoning is certainly flawed for reasons already indicated.

The NT does not indicate how often they observed communion. In the NT, communion followed dinner, was not necessarily a part of it. Glad and sincere hearts does not rule out a sincere worshipful reflection on the death of Christ. The Lord's Supper is not a party.

There are too many problems with Anderson's analysis.

 

I have problems with much of Anderson's chart BUT he also makes some great points.

The Lord's Supper - was observed on a regular basis. It seems every time they met which Scripture implies and was the practice of the early Church fathers. It is true there is no command to have it every Sunday BUT it does seem this was the practice of the Apostolic Church and the ante Nicene fathers that followed.

 

IT should be observed on a regular basis to be sure. But how regular is not prescribed and that is why we cannot draw a distinction between the "modern church" and the "NT church" on the basis of weekly or monthly, or quarterly.

 

The ordinances being baptism and Lord's Supper

If they fail to baptise and if they fail to participate in Lord's Supper---they would, I suppose, continue to BE a church---but a disobedient one!!

Is that the answer you're lookin' for?? Because--see??? I don't know that answer---because I've always been obedient to both ordinances!