The Frequency of the Lord's Supper

[Scott Pitta]

William Francis Manley, who brought Pentecostalism to San Francisco, emphasized healing and the Lord's Supper. I do not know of other early California Pentecostals with such a signature emphasis.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

William Francis Manley, who brought Pentecostalism to San Francisco, emphasized healing and the Lord's Supper. I do not know of other early California Pentecostals with such a signature emphasis.

Perhaps New Testament restoration was not yet complete?

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Perhaps New Testament restoration was not yet complete?

As I mentioned in another post, some (maybe most) Apostolics could never believe frequent Communion could be a part of the full restoration of the NT church since it didn't occur in the early days of the Pentecostal movement. I mean could we actually have been wrong about something essential to being Apostolic for so long?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

William Francis Manley, who brought Pentecostalism to San Francisco, emphasized healing and the Lord's Supper. I do not know of other early California Pentecostals with such a signature emphasis.

Gene Scott was ALL about people getting their healing during the Communion service.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

William Francis Manley, who brought Pentecostalism to San Francisco, emphasized healing and the Lord's Supper. I do not know of other early California Pentecostals with such a signature emphasis.

The Catholics teach that taking communion imparts eternal life to the soul. It is a very short hop skip and jump from there to thinking that taking communion can impart divine healing to the individual. Especially when one thinks of communion as a wafer or part of a wafer, to be eaten in solemn ritualistic manner with much introspection, almost like a magic rite.

Whereas, Biblically, the actual action of taking communion was a common method of sharing bread at a meal to signify unity (a loaf of bread broken up and shared to the members, not the leftover catholic wafer ritual so common today).

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The Catholics teach that taking communion imparts eternal life to the soul. It is a very short hop skip and jump from there to thinking that taking communion can impart divine healing to the individual..

Not exactly what you're referring to, but very early on in the first decade of the second century AD, at least one prominent bishop in the third most important city of the Roman Empire referred to the (eternal) life-giving power of the Lord's Supper: "Breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ" (Ignatius's letter to the Ephesians, ch. 20, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm). I'm not sure how prevalent this view was, but very early on some were not thinking of it just in symbolic terms.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Costeon

Not exactly what you're referring to, but very early on in the first decade of the second century AD, at least one prominent bishop in the third most important city of the Roman Empire referred to the (eternal) life-giving power of the Lord's Supper: "Breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ" (Ignatius's letter to the Ephesians, ch. 20, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm). I'm not sure how prevalent this view was, but very early on some were not thinking of it just in symbolic terms.

Ignatius also spearheaded the monarchical bishop idea.

Of course, a lot of his writings are highly dubious as to authenticity. He's probably the least useful of Antenicene "fathers" to be quoted establishing a timeline for anything.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Ignatius also spearheaded the monarchical bishop idea.

Of course, a lot of his writings are highly dubious as to authenticity. He's probably the least useful of Antenicene "fathers" to be quoted establishing a timeline for anything.

I don't think his epistle to the Ephesians is disputed, and from what I can tell this passage is undisputed (it's the same in the longer and shorter versions). Even if Ignatius is to be disregarded, no other ante-nicene writer talks about Communion, whether about its significance or how often to celebrate it, like most Protestants or Pentecostals.

I would imagine most Pentecostals would be inclined to disregard most evidence from post-apostolic writers, but it is worth noting that there is no support for infrequent Communion in the early Christian writers outside of the Bible.

The case for infrequent Communion, like all doctrines, has to be based on Scripture. I don't recall hearing any of my pastors carefully go through what Paul says in 1 Cor 11 on the Lord's Supper to defend the position of only taking it once or twice a year.

Do you think, if it can be shown that Paul's teaching in 1 Cor indicates they were celebrating the Lord's Supper frequently, maybe each week, that this mean all believers have to do that? I'm not sure how I feel about it. I'm inclined to say yes, but I have to note that weekly or frequent Communion is not commanded.

Thanks for your input.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Costeon

I don't think his epistle to the Ephesians is disputed, and from what I can tell this passage is undisputed (it's the same in the longer and shorter versions). Even if Ignatius is to be disregarded, no other ante-nicene writer talks about Communion, whether about its significance or how often to celebrate it, like most Protestants or Pentecostals.

I would imagine most Pentecostals would be inclined to disregard most evidence from post-apostolic writers, but it is worth noting that there is no support for infrequent Communion in the early Christian writers outside of the Bible.

The case for infrequent Communion, like all doctrines, has to be based on Scripture. I don't recall hearing any of my pastors carefully go through what Paul says in 1 Cor 11 on the Lord's Supper to defend the position of only taking it once or twice a year.

Do you think, if it can be shown that Paul's teaching in 1 Cor indicates they were celebrating the Lord's Supper frequently, maybe each week, that this mean all believers have to do that? I'm not sure how I feel about it. I'm inclined to say yes, but I have to note that weekly or frequent Communion is not commanded.

Thanks for your input.

Since the Bible doesn't explicitly state a preferred time table for the Lord's Supper, it seems flexible depending on congregation, situation, etc. Which actually makes sense.

I think Paul's words imply frequent eating of the Lords supper.

[Costeon]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

William Francis Manley, who brought Pentecostalism to San Francisco, emphasized healing and the Lord's Supper. I do not know of other early California Pentecostals with such a signature emphasis.

Interesting. It's been awhile since I've been on this forum, but I seem to recall that you are really interested in early Pentecostal history. Do you know if there were ever any debates in the early Pentecostal movement over the place of the Lord's Supper in worship? I emailed a prof at UGST once about this, but did not receive an answer.

As far as I know there was no debate. If this is the case, I would imagine it was because the groups from which most Pentecostals came had similar views about it's frequency and so it was not controversial.

When discussing the Lord's Supper with a couple of UPCI pastors, it seemed that they just couldn't believe that frequent Communion could possibly be Apostolic; otherwise, it would have been revealed/recovered in the early 20th century along with the Oneness of God, Jesus' name baptism, etc.