The Truth in Print Vol. 23 Issue 2,
Mar. 2017
A Publication of the Valley church of
Christ,
2375 W. 8th Street, Yuma, AZ 85364
(928-782-5058)
Website Address ~ http://yumavalleychurchofchrist.com
A Review of “Church
Validation of The Lord’s Supper” by Robert Turner
"Church"
Validation of The Lord's Supper by Robert F. Turner
(Printed
in Torch Mag. Sept. 1984 Issue)
¶1 In discussions we have heard
and read on what some call the "Second Supper," or what is becoming
"Multiple Partaking' on the Lord's Day, one element essential to the
argument seems to be ignored, with little recognition of its importance. Is
"the assembly" essential to the validation of the commemorative
feast? MUST the church provide the bread and fruit of the vine, and arrange the
partaking? MUST all the church partake "at the same 'time" to
validate the Supper? Is the so-called "called assembly" and the
"blessing" or "serving" sanctioned there, that which makes
communion with the Lord possible? However one states it, this is the very old
issue of "church" authority, and its roots are those of Roman
Catholicism.
Note (B.L.): Notice he
says that the roots of the assembly being essential to the Lord’s Supper are
those of Catholicism. That’s wrong!
¶2 Catholicism
says the Lord established "the church" and placed in this society or
institution, the Lord's Supper. They teach the elements must be right, the
right things said and done, the participant must have the proper attitude, but
in addition the Supper must be administered by "the church."
Reasoning that "the church" was established to preach the word,
baptize, organize churches, serve the Lord's Supper, etc., Catholicism has
opposed the individual's right to do any thing they consider
a "church" function. There could have been no Reformation nor
Restoration, if reformers and restorers had not repudiated this concept.
Note (B.L.): Where
Catholicism goes wrong is the Seed is the Word (Lk. 8:11; Rom. 1:16). It can produce a Christian where there are
none around. If one reads and understands and desires to be baptized into
Christ’s church they can have one who isn’t a Christian do the physical part.
Would that person then desire to and be allowed to teach another who isn’t a Christian?
¶3 John Wycliff, Morning Star of the Reformation, advocated
individual reading of the Bible, and translated it into the language of the
people so they could study it. He encouraged the "Lollards" (men not
church "authorized"), to teach the word. In Bohemia, Huss was burned
at the stake for following Wycliff's example, and
refusing to recant his "sin" of preaching without the sanction of
"the church." You say "we" would never have such a concept.
One of "our" preachers took me to task for presuming to go to
Australia to preach, without being "sent by a church." He had not yet
accepted the idea of the universal church as a validating society, but he
treated the local church and/or its elders as such. He quoted Romans 10:15 as
his proof. Of course, that refers to God sending messengers to Gentiles as well
as Jews (cf. Isaiah 52:8-10).
Note (B.L.): A local
church (N.T.) isn’t “the church” that is the Roman Catholic church
he’s referred to here. We don’t have a Head Quarters like Roman Catholicism with
sanctions coming down from man’s own man-made headquarters.
¶4 Catholicism
says seven "sacraments" are committed to "the church," and
the blessings accruing to each are available only through church authorized
administrators, or, in emergences, by sanction of
"the church." You say "we" would not hold such ideas? Have you forgotten
those who insist baptism must be "administered" by one of
"our" preachers? Or those who make "the assembly" a
validating factor for Bible class teaching and the Lord's Supper? Will we
contend the universal church is not a validating factor, but the local church
is such a factor? While we are at it, please note that Hebrews 10:25 does not
say "forsaking the assembly" "called" or otherwise), but
"the assembling." The word (episunagogan)
refers to the act of coming together, not to some holy convocation. The action,
prompted by the right motive, is urged; rather than saying a certain assembly
is the important thing.
Note (B.L.): Even if you
should take Heb. 10:24-25 out of the picture of an assembly for the local
church, both 24-25, on the Lord’s day for the purpose of partaking of the
Lord’s Supper — you still haven’t done away with that assembly. When he finds
the Lord’s Supper in the New Testament what “kind” of assembly does he find it in? He’ll
tell you himself as you read on.
¶5 Catholicism
can (and does) point to great harm done by ill prepared teachers, their
"private interpretations," and the schismatic effect of such. We can
(and do) point to abuses of individuals partaking of the Lord's Supper apart
from public assembling for that purpose. (A prejudicial term used to smear the
idea is "brown-bagging it") But false teaching is wrong, even if done
by a priest during Mass. And in the second instance,
"forsaking the assembling" is the basic error -- and that error
exists if some come to the church building to partake of the Lord's Supper, and
then hurry out the side door to meet their fishing buddies. Abuses do not
change the need for sound principles.
Note (B.L.): It’s really
hard to write on this and not get the assembly of the local church for that
purpose in there.
¶6 The scriptures teach brethren
should work together, assembling to edify and strengthen one another as they
sing praises to God, pray together, teach and admonish, give of their means,
and partake of the Lord's Supper (Colossians 3:16; Acts 12:5, 12; 20:7; 1
Corinthians 16:2). Paul "gathered the church together" to tell of his
preaching journeys (Acts 14:27); and wrote of "the whole church .....come together" for edification (1 Corinthians 14:23,
26). The above examples, with Hebrews 10:19-25, tell us the Lord desires and
expects faithful brethren to come together-and a willful forsaking or
neglecting of the opportunity to come together is sinful. When so-called
"brown-bagging" means "forsaking the assembling of ourselves
together" it is sinful, and I have no good word to say for it. But this
does not say singing, edification, the Lord's Supper, etc,
are invalid except "the church" call, arrange, purchase necessary
elements, and sanction them.
Note (B.L.): Paul also
wrote of the assembly of the church for partaking of the Lord’s Supper. Why not
use I Cor. 11 here? Paul and Silas sang in prison but where is the singing in I
Cor. 14? It is the assembly.
¶7 Jesus
said he would commune with his disciples in the (Messianic) kingdom (Matthew
26:29). But units of the kingdom are citizens - individual saints, not
congregations. In the absence of a scriptural local church must we conclude
there can be no communion between Christ the King and a loyal citizen? Can that
citizen not "remember" via the bread and fruit of the vine?
Note (B.L.): Brethren do
we just “assume” we aren’t to look for what items of fellowship “are”
authorized for that individual? Do we assume that “silence” permits such? God’s
silence is prohibitive not permissive (Heb. 7:12,14;
8:4).
¶8 If the
"church" as a functioning institution stands between the saint and
his worship and service of God, continuity of a viable institution must be
assured. And since the church cannot judge itself (2 Corinthians 10:12-f),
individuals must apply the scriptural "rule" to test the validity of
the institution that then is used to validate their worship. With such reasoning
it is little wonder the Catholic church was driven to
its claims of infallibility. With salvation and service to God hinged upon a
viable institution infallibility was the inevitable outcome. Historical
churches (Protestants) who deny infallibility had to find a counterpart. They
claim that truth is resident in "the church" in its larger sense (all
denominations considered as the One Body). And some of our brethren have
adopted a similar idea by saying "the great middle section" of the
church cannot be wrong. Brethren, there is much at stake here, in current and
long-range consequences.
Note (B.L.): This proves
nothing concerning there not being individual worship that is acceptable
without it including the Supper. His “if” doesn’t include what a Christian “can
do” scripturally without having a church to assemble with. A “local church”
certainly can “judge” things concerning itself by the scriptures (I Cor.
5:12—morals (Matt. 16:18); I Cor. 14:29—teaching). Whatever he perceives the
Catholic concept to be we are not the Catholic church!
¶9 Christ
died for individuals who, one by one, come to Him for forgiveness. He
"purchased the church" not as a corporate body (local or universal)
but as all obedient souls make up the church distributively.
Each must come to Him for cleansing; each has an immediate relationship with
God through Christ; could be an acceptable child of God if not another saint
existed on earth. Most of us agree succession is in the "seed," and
this argues for the seed's application to individuals. If a Bible drifted to
some far away shore where Christianity was totally unknown, an individual could
translate, study, believe and obey with no connection to any functioning
church. That direct and individual obligation is never lost -- and will be the
basis for final judgment. But as saints multiply and rightly accept obligations
to one another, forming a local church; there is a tendency to switch
allegiance from Christ to the society or church as a body. This tendency colors
our thinking on the Lord's Supper, and other like problems.
Note (B.L.): When saints
rightly (scripturally) accept obligations to one another in forming (and
belonging to) a local church they are in allegiance to Christ. When you rightly
accept obligations to one another in a local church, you rightly understand
that God placed the Supper in the assembly for that purpose.
¶10 Perhaps the hardest obstacle
to overcome in writing this article is my knowledge that some might think they
find in it an excuse for ignoring their obligations to other saints, ignoring
the Lord's desire and teaching that they should work and worship together. With
some, to admit that Timothy's wine may have had an alcoholic content, is to
approve their social drinking. With some, to say we are not bound by a tithing
law is to sanction their miserly giving. I'm afraid we sometimes abandon sound
Bible teaching for what we consider an easier way to fight abuses. But we will
pay dearly for such short-sightedness, and I refuse to be a party to it.
Note (B.L.): Brother
Turner abandoned what he’s saying is sometimes abandoned. Reverse that and say,
When you abandon the New Testament pattern it is an
easy way to sanction abuses. That’s the way this really works. What he says
some might think is sadly what some do think — because they are not back home
they take it at the cabin at the lake, while stopping at a roadside park, etc.
¶11 I
believe with all my heart that saints should come together upon the first day
of the week and partake of the Lord's Supper. But each individual saint is
communing with Christ in so doing (I Corinthians 11:24-25, 28); and if
circumstances were such that no "forsaking the assembling" was
involved, the individual could have this communion with the Lord in the absence
of a "called assembly." It is not essential that the whole church
partake of the Lord's Supper (a "second time" for many) in order that
members unable to partake at the morning service, eat and drink an acceptable
memorial feast at the evening service.
Note (B.L.): Again, where
does partaking of the Lord's Supper taking place in I Cor. 11? One cannot just
ignore the context beginning with verse 17 that speaks of when “you come
together” (17), “when you come together as a church” (18), “when you come
together in one place” (20), “when you come together to eat, wait for one another” (33) — not just any old way. How
do you get one person out of that? He’s all over the place with this kind of
human reasoning. He goes from justifying the individual outside the assembly to
justifying the individual or less than the whole partaking in the assembly.
Closing: Brother Turner thought one could take the
Lord’s Supper alone under certain circumstances. He didn’t think all members
assembled have to partake together. In Acts 20:7 the disciples “came together
to break bread” — all disciples who assembled partook. Did they do together
what they came together to do?
There’s more than just I Cor.
11:28 in the context of the Supper in chapter eleven. In I Cor. 11 there’s a
collectivity and this is collective action. There’s something else involved in
this chapter other than just that “unit” that is the “individual” he mentioned
that makes up the church universal; those “units” (individuals) ALSO make up
the local church — and the scriptural pattern for the Supper is in what
assembly? The church isn’t just “offering it” in these passages — Christians
assembled are “partaking” having come together for that purpose, and are told
to wait for one another in order to do so (I Cor. 11:33). Moreover, the
examining of oneself to discern the emblems properly in remembrance of His
death takes place in an assembly where the church came together for that
purpose — in context of partaking together. There is no option to partake or
not partake; each is told to examine himself and eat. Consider if just
“offering it” in the second assembly is the same as the pattern of all
partaking together. It is but a short step for a solution — in the second
assembly do what you did in the first. Have a planned assembly twice on the
Lord’s Day for the Supper. You come together and sing again, pray again and
receive instruction again in a second assembly or more at times. A church can
have the Lord’s Supper as many times as it desires upon the Lord’s Day, but it must
have an assembly for that purpose at least once. The number of times was not
specified (“as often as”, I Cor. 11:26). Jesus had a “specific” day in mind
(Matt. 26:29) and “that day” is identified in Acts 20:7 as “the first day of
the week.” And since we are told they continued stedfastly
in the partaking (Acts 2:42 “breaking of bread”) and they met daily in the
Temple (Acts 2:46) — the repetition is easily seen in Sunday being a “day” of
the week.
(For much more study: “Review of Robert Turner On The Lord’s Supper” by
Maurice Barnett, Torch Mag. Aug. 1984; “Review Of Robert Turner On Church
Validation of the Lord’s Supper” by Barnett Torch Mag. Sept. 1984; “The New
Testament Pattern for the Correct Partaking of the Lord’s Supper” by Willie
Ramsey *currently available from brother Ramsey.)
Valley
Church of Christ
2375 W. 8th
Street, Yuma, AZ 85364
(928)
782-5058 ~ http://yumavalleychurchofchrist.com
Sunday
Services – Classes ~10:00; Assembly 10:50 am; Evening: 6:00 pm.
Wednesday
evening – 7:00 pm
To learn more call, visit or visit
our website at:
http://yumavalleychurchofchrist.com