The Truth in Print Vol. 26 May 2020
A Publication of the Valley church of Christ,
2375 W. 8th Street, Yuma, AZ 85364 (928-782-5058)
Website
Address ~ http://yumavalleychurchofchrist.com
Addendum to “A Review
of Bob Owen’s ‘Individual Communion’ (Facebook) by Bob Lovelace” Extra Ed.
You can read Bob Owen’s recent Lord’s Supper
presentation for the Corona virus restrictions transcribed in May’s article “A
Review of Bob Owen’s ‘Individual Communion’ Facebook” May 2020, Vol. 26 Issue
4. He uses the same “Catholic concept” as Robert Turner’s article “Church
Validation of the Lord’s Supper.”
He applies it against Christians partaking of the Lord’s Supper at home
while viewing a presentation of worship gone through on Sunday at the church
building by some men who have a worship service with songs (pre-recorded),
prayer, the Lord’s Supper and instruction in the Word.
To say that they could not partake of the Supper outside the assembly of
the church he suggests is a view no different from the Catholic view that the
church controls all the sacraments and only the priest can administer. (B.L.)
Before going further I’ll just say
concerning Robert Turner’s “Catholic Concept” and anyone’s use of it — the
answer is the same as to Robert Turner’s article “Church Validation of the
Lord’s Supper.” The Church of Christ existed before the Catholic Church and it
doesn’t matter what the Catholic Church does or doesn’t do. That doesn’t change
the venue for the Lord’s Supper according to the scriptures.
Concerning
whether it is scriptural for someone to eat the Lord’s Supper outside the
public assembly Owen states that some “… remember passages like Acts the
twentieth chapter ‘upon the first day of the week the disciples met together to
break bread,’ and first Corinthians eleven ‘when you come together in the
church’ and they conclude that you cannot eat the Lord’s Supper except in the
public assembly of the brethren.”
Well, the venue for the Lord’s Supper is stated in the verses he quoted
from (Acts 20:7; I Cor. 11:18 in context). The Lord set it in the planned
assembly of the local church for that purpose. Those Christians who assembled
partook together.
Following that he presents what he called a principle from Rom. 14 “that
anything a person does in violation of his conscience would be sinful.”
Thus here’s another major flaw in his argument by injecting Rom. 14 out
of context —- nothing there applied to the Lord’s Supper; the eating in Rom. 14
is not the coming together “to eat” the Supper in I Cor. 11:33.
This is eventually followed with his emphasis upon I Cor. 11:27-29 and
the personal pronouns. Here he presents: “Even though we do it in the
collection of the brethren we’re doing a private practice. It is not a corporate
practice.”
What he’s
doing is talking about individual action of examining oneself, but failing to
put enough emphasis upon the fact that it is a work of the local church to
provide the Lord’s Supper as an act of worship for members to do together in an
assembly for that purpose.
To grab verses 27-29 out of the context that way “shades” far too much
the specifics stating where this is to be done — the planned assembly “in one
place” when all brethren assembled “to eat” the Supper — they waited for one
another in that assembly.
We talk about the “worship of the church” all the time meaning that the
church acts as an organization in providing the Lord’s Supper and Praying,
Singing, Instructing and having a church Treasury thus offering opportunities
to give.
In reviewing I asked “Where would you put the decision of the church to
assemble at a particular time on Sunday? You’d attribute it to the whole being
in agreement. It would be hard to say we agreed under the oversight of the men
to assemble at a certain time and partake and that not be the collective action
of our church. So we have both the individual setting his mind on the emblems
and the collectivity to consider.”
Why are churches having to teach their members that it is
wrong for them to take the Supper outside the assembly?
Our
congregation knew that is wrong before the corona pandemic. We understood that
because of the instruction given in Acts 20:7 and I Cor. 11:17-34.
If members of churches have been taught that the scriptural partaking of
the Lord’s Supper is essentially individual wouldn’t that have led some to
readily accept such is Ok?
Moreover if they have been taught that “one” or “some” members can take
it when the church assembles together while the rest of the members do not
partake wouldn’t that also have led some to readily accept such is Ok?
What is missing when a church has an assembly on the Lord’s Day and one
or some of its members come “to eat” the Supper, but the other members who have
assembled do not? Is it just a matter of them allowing the one or some a time
to do that “in” the assembly or are there specifics being left out?
In I Cor. 11:17-18 Paul addressed their assembly as a group or whole
i.e. ALL who came together — “as a church” (sing.) — there is no place where
the “unit” is the individual alone i.e. separated off by himself in the context
for they are to come together — in one place —“to eat” the Supper (I Cor.
11:17-18, 20, 33). The individuals make up that assembly. It was partaken of by
those Christians who assembled.
In I Cor. 11:20 when brethren came together in the planned assembly “in
one place” it should have been for ALL “to eat” the Supper – I don’t see anywhere that it says “some” are
to eat when they came together — that was their problem, some ate and others
didn’t. When ALL brethren who assembled together “to eat” it was “in one place.”
The American Heritage Dictionary: “together” adv. 1. In or into a single
group, mass, or place: “gather together.” In I Cor. 11:20 “into one place” (KJV)
adds force to they were to “come together” — it should have been to eat the
Supper. (Compare Acts 2:1; I Cor. 14:23).
In I Cor. 11:33 when they came together ALL members planned “to eat” and
they were to “wait” (pl.) for one another (reciprocal). You can’t wait on
yourself! This is what is missing in the Sunday evening assembly when one or
“some” eat.
Just like in Acts 20:7 the specified purpose was “to break bread” and
that applied to ALL Christians who assembled partook. There in Troas when all
brethren who assembled partook it was “in one place.”
What is missing Sunday night with just one or “some” partaking? That
simply is not when coming together, in one place, ALL planned “to eat” and they
were to wait (pl.) for one another (reciprocal), I Cor. 11:33.
The “where” is the planned assembly “in one place” in order “to eat” the
Supper when ALL brethren who assembled eat it — they waited for one another in
that assembly. That’s “how” it was done correctly. That doesn’t teach you can
drag the “waiting” into another kind of planned assembly counting possibly on
one or some “to eat” and claim that those not eating are waiting!
From “The New Testament Pattern For the Correct Partaking of the Lord’s
Supper” (By Willie Ramsey, pg. 9) *Publication still available.
“SPECIFICS:
1. The act of worship - eating
and drinking the
Lord’s Supper (Matt. 26:26-29)
2. To whom it is addressed and
applied - every member present (“the disciples” in Acts 20:7; “ye” in I Cor.
11:17, 18, 20, 33, 34)
3. The time - “the first day of the
[every] week”
4. The elements - unleavened bread
and fruit of the vine
5. The amount partaken - small
amounts, not for the purpose to satisfy physical hunger or to constitute a
common meal (I Cor. 11:20-34)
6. The arrangement within the
assembly - “together”, in “one place”
7. Its purpose – partaken “in
remembrance of Christ”
Therefore...
8. The capacity - as a local
church, in one place of its assembly, together.”
To learn more call, visit or visit our website at:
http://yumavalleychurchofchrist.com