Amend before you come ? This is worse than roman catholicism, or about the same, where instead of doing penance to qualify for mass you have to amend your life which of course is impossible to do. If I could amend before I come what’s my need for coming ? Stop sinning before I go to the Lord’s Supper ? Impossible if I could stop sinning I would not need the Lord’s Supper. Examine if I am nursing a sin or have a habitual sin ? Of course I have plenty of habitual sins and nurse plenty of sins, the Old Adam loves sin. Now I can truly see how so many lutherans are so frustrated with the Reformed and say the differences are not small. As I said the Reformed understanding of the Lord’s Supper is like the roman catholic mass where there is no comfort for the sinner but doubts about his salvation. In lutheranism the only condition to come to the Lord’s Supper is that you reckon yourself a sinner in need Christ’s forgiveness, you come to the Lord’s supper for one reason, to receive the forgiveness of sin. Christ does not want you to stop sinning, Christ does not want you to fix yourself before the Lord’s Supper, no quite the opposite Christ loves those that come broken by sin to the Lord’s Supper so He can forgive their sin (fix them). There is no amending of the sinner prior to the Lord;s Supper, as a matter of fact quite the opposite the sinner knows he’s incapable of any amendment, and this is why he comes to Christ to receive his true body and shed blood for the remission of sin. What a difference between the reformed and the lutheran, in the former you have to amend before you come while in the latter you come because you cannot amend and therefore need thee free remission of sins (the body and blood of Christ in the Supper). Now yes after receiving the Lord’s Supper lutherans would argue that your faith is strengthened and fruit of the holy spirit will follow, but any amending (like the strengthening of your faith) in lutheranism would come after the Lord’s Supper, never before. I cannot believe that Edwards understanding of the Lord’s supper is the standard understanding, because it is complete works righteousness, as bad as the roman catholic mass from that perspective.

“They were wont to have the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in the primitive church very often, by all accounts of ecclesiastical history. And it seems by the account of holy Scripture that they were at first wont to celebrate this ordinance daily, as Acts 2:46, “and they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and in breaking bread from house to house”; afterwards weekly, every sabbath day, Acts 20:7, “and upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread.”

And it coming so frequently, the Corinthians it seems were wont to improve it for a profane use, viz. for the same end as they did their meals in their own houses, viz. to satisfy their hunger and thirst and to nourish their bodies. And therefore the Apostle says, “What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?” (v. 22). Your own houses and not the house of God is the place where you ought to eat and drink for bodily refreshment and nourishment.

And then it seems they did not merely profane this ordinance by making use of the elements of it as ordinary meat and drink, but they profaned it by intemperance, especially in drinking, as the Apostle intimates in v. 21. They did not profane it by gluttony or in being intemperate in eating that bread, for there is scarcely any room for a temptation to be gluttonous in eating bread simply. They were excessive in their drinking wine.”1

1. Edwards, J. (1999). Self-Examination and the Lord’s Supper. In M. Valeri & H. S. Stout (Eds.), Sermons and Discourses, 1730–1733 (Vol. 17, pp. 264–265). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.

I think that I might agree with you. Paul does say, “When we are judged, it is that we may not be condemned with the world.” It seems to be severe Divine chastisement, rather than punitive judgment. Thanks.