John MacArthur and Communion

By Church, did they mean the physical building or the body of Christ?

What do you feel about Military Chaplians who give communion to soldiers going into combat?

 

Well said... :applause: :thumbs: :applause:

 

Since you didn't ask a specific question, yes, it is hard to figure out what you asking. What about the people who can't attend the church building? What are you asking about them? I am not trying to be obtuse here, but I would like to know exactly what the question is before I answer.

 

It is the assembly, whereever it meets. It is not specifically the building, since the church is not defined by building but by people with regular and stated meetings times, with biblical leadership, keeping hte ordinances, preaching the gospel, etc. A dad meeting with his family simply is not a church. They are a part of the church.

I see no biblical warrant and no necessity for it. If a chaplain has a biblical church and serves communion to soldiers in the church during the church's observance, I have no issue with that. But communion is an ordinance of the church and is to be observed by the church.

 

This is an interesting discussion.

I agree with MacArthur.

The Church is believers, the people of God. If believers are present in a family, military base or wherever, what is wrong with them partaking of the Lord's Supper and celebrating his death, burial and resurrection?

I think it is a beautiful thing for a family to celebrate that together in an act of worship.

 

It is especially appropriate if your church meets in your home .

 

No, they should not partake where they are at. Because the ordinance is an ordinance of the church to be celebrated corporately, not individually. Because that is what God said in his Bible.

Remember, I asked if anyone here could give any Scriptural instance of communion in the church being celebrated in a private gathering rather than with the corporate church. So far, no one has offered one.

There are many things that take place in the corporate body of the church that don't take place elsewhere. People who can't come miss out. And that is part of life. It has always been that way.

This is very funny for several reasons. One, because the idea that I have any connection with Rome is absurd. I have been one of the few vocal ones on this board completely opposed to Romanism in all of its forms and doctrines. I have no quarter for the false teaching that has sprung from the Roman church for 1500 years, including its teaching on communion. Your position is closer to the position of Romanism. They will take communion privately to those who are bedridden, sick, going to war, etc. I don't see any occasion of that in Scripture.

Second, it is funny because the only legitimate need for communion in private for sick or shut-ins is if Rome is right. If communion is a means of grace in salvation, then by all means, it should be served privately. But people who do not celebrate communion because they are sick and unable to make it to church lose no spiritual blessing. They are not shut off from the means of grace.

The Roman view of the sacrament is the only reason to serve it privately. Since I believe the Scripture teaches a memorial view, not a sacramental view, I see no reason to do anything other than what the Bible says.

Now, if you can show me from Scripture that communion is a means of grace, without which one's spiritual well-being is adversely affected, then we have somethign to discuss. If you can show me any instance in Scripture of communion being observed privately, then we have something to discuss.

So far, we have neither. We have only the ideas of some divorced from Scripture that communion is a private thing, and we have the unanimous testimony of Scripture that communion is a corporate observance of the church gathered. I believe in the latter.

 

That really wasn't the question, was it Roger? The question was about private servings of communion, such a Father with his children.

Let's ask this: Is baptism valid if a Father privately baptizes his son in the backyard swimming pool? Would that be acceptable to any Baptist here? I doubt it. So why is communion any different? Baptists, based on Scripture, have always viewed these two ordinances as ordinances of the church, have they not?

Perhaps brother Vaughn, who seems to be the history expert here, might comment on whether Baptists have ever observed communion privately, apart from the corporate body. I don't know, and I don't think it is all that important, but it would be interesting.

 

Yes, but in view of their becoming the local church leaders. He gave it to them to pass on to the church.

Then why do we see nothing like this in the NT? I don’t need to prove that it isn’t, just like I don’t need to prove that fried mushrooms and green beer aren’t biblical elements to serve communion with.

Ironically enough, the verse you almost cite uses plural forms, or as we say in the south, “y’all.” It is a reference to the church body doing it, not some individual or family.

I didn’t make the rules. And you can’t show one instance of someone not assembled together partaking in communion. That is stunning evidence against you. Surely there were sick people in the first century. Surely they faced this problem. But yet you don’t see it happening.

Mine was not. Your position is necessary only if Rome is right about the sacraments. If memorialism is right, as Baptists have historically believed, then there is no issue.

So what about baptism? Can you address that? Would you say a father can baptize his son in the backyard pool? Is that okay? If not, then why is communion different?

 

Since you ask, what scripture do you have that says either ordinance can only be performed in a assembled Church setting?

John was not in a Church setting when he baptized Jesus. Communion begins with, "and as they were eating..." So we see the Master involved in both ordinances while not in a formal Church setting. What scripture do you have that supports a formal setting being necessary?

 

In spite of what Pastor Larry says, I see nothing in the Scripture restricting the Lord's Supper to only the local church.

When Jesus instituted the first Lord's Supper, it was with His apostles, not with a Church body.

BTW, our church has the Lord's Supper every Sunday.

 

It is in the whole NT, including John 14:26 and 15:26, both of which are explicit on the fact that Jesus’ teaching was for their leadership of the church.

No, it’s singular. You can look this up in your Greek NT, or study resources.

Where have I made any rules? I am simply saying we should follow the NT pattern in the matter of church ordinances.

On that we agree. But the position of Rome was that the table conveyed grace to the recipient for salvation. If I believed that, I would serve it/take it wherever and whenever. But that is not what it is for. It is a time for the church to remember the sacrifice, not for people to have their little individual parties.

Wow … At least you are consistent. However, again, I think you lack any biblical support for this kind of stuff.

I would be very interested in having a discussion about Scripture. I am not so much interested in your opinion. All I see in Scripture is communion and baptism taking place in the gathered assembly. So that is what I believe we should practice. If you think we should do it otherwise, the burden of proof is on you.

 

John's baptism wasn't Christian baptism. Baptism is a bit harder of a case to make since the Ethiopian eunuch was baptized outside a local church as was the Philippian jailer. So we do have cases of people being baptized outside the local church.

But again, we need to consider the theology of baptism a little closer. Baptism is a public profession of salvation. It is hard to reconcile a public profession with a private baptism.

However, in teh case of communion, there are no examples of communion apart from the body. The key passages such as 1 cor 11:18, 33; and Acts 20:7 all specify "coming together" to break bread. It was clearly an assembled act, not an individual one.

Again, look at the fat that no one can give even one instance of a church age observance of communion that wasn't in the body. So it appears that I am doing exactly what the apostles did.

Christ with his disciples was not a church age observance. It was a teaching time that the apostles carried on. If Christ comes and serves communion at my house, I will partake. Until then, I will do it in the pattern of the NT. I don't think in theology we can "roll our own."

To Terry and Gershom, you guys can certainly agree with MacArthur over me. I believe that all the weight of Scripture is against him (and you) and on my side. And you have proven that point by a failure to come up with even one example to support you. I find that very telling.

In the end, this is not a huge deal. People are not going to hell over it. That's why private observance is unnecessary. That is why the position you advocate is essentially a Roman position, or a position that grows out of Roman theology, I think. I guarantee you that is why they serve communion privately. But given our theology of salvation, why should we follow them?

 

None taken. I certainly don't care. But remember, MacArthur has had to publicly change his position on some things. I have never had to do that.