Fencing the Table?

[blhowes]

Originally posted by NaphtaliPress
The pastor in our church makes it clear you have to meet with the session first so they can hear your profession of faith, in order to partake. Then, it helps that we all go down to partake at table. No passing of the elements out in the pews.

That would alleviate part of the problem, going down to partake instead of passing the elements out in the pews.

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by trevorjohnson
Some congregations I know only allow the members of their own local church to partake..this, they concluded, was the only way that they could dutifully fence their table.

..thus, I was not allowed to partake - even though I preached and even though they support me as a missionary. But this seems to ignore the universal nature of the church,does it not?

It seems real 'funny' that a person would be able to preach from their pulpit, then not be allowed to partake of the Lord's table.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

How often is it the case that someone forces themselves on the table any way? I would think it would be unusual. And I would think the pastor would simply suspend the whole proceedings in that case if there were a "scene."

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by trevorjohnson
But theological error even would not demand being closed off from the ordinances, would it?

We are told not to even eat with one who is engaged in gross unrepentant sin...but can I eat with a Dispensationalist - or must I wait until he gives up the errors of his ways? How about a paed/credo,etc?

It appears that the administration of the table is broader than many would accept.

Though....I do not yet know how broad or how narow....

As long as one is a Christian who is living without gross sin (even despite minor theological differences) it appears that the table would be open to them, wouldn't it? And it appears that the examination comes from within and not from without (examine yourselves).

Some congregations I know only allow the members of their own local church to partake..this, they concluded, was the only way that they could dutifully fence their table.

..thus, I was not allowed to partake - even though I preached and even though they support me as a missionary. But this seems to ignore the universal nature of the church,does it not?

Trevor, don't you think Dispensationalism is gross sin? Doctrinal error is not morally neutral. It is scandal. Would you allow a practicing sodomite to the table who was convinced buggery is not a sin? There are many very sincere homosexual christians. Why the double standard for practical error?

 

[beej6]

but are there not degrees of error? Is Dispensationalism not only a sin, but also a heresy? (I'd be sympathetic to this, but it's not up to me, then, is it ;-))

Do any of your Sessions/ Consistories which do not practice closed communion, as a rule, disallow dispenationalists (even Calvinist ones) from the table?

 

[wsw201]

Originally posted by trevorjohnson
A very fine OPC church I attended while at SIL in Dallas Texas gave a verbal "fencing". Christ Covenant OPC which meets on the Wycliffe campus.

It was a very strong warning every Sunday to only partake if you are a believer in good standing with a church and not under discipline nor abiding in unrepentant sin.

It appears that this faithful pastor discharged his duties.



Is this the preferred model of fencing?

This is the prescribed manner per the OPC BCO.

 

[BaptistCanuk]

It is not anyone's (elders included) responsibility (ie business) to forcefully STOP someone from taking communion. It is between an individual and God. Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, does it tell elders to stop someone from taking communion if the person has not been excommunicated. If they aren't members of your church, so what!! It is between THEM and God!!

[Edited on 4-30-2006 by BaptistCanuk]

 

[wsw201]

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
It is not anyone's (elders included) responsibility (ie business) to forcefully STOP someone from taking communion. It is between an individual and God. Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, does it tell elders to stop someone from taking communion if the person has not been excommunicated. If they aren't members of your church, so what!! It is between THEM and God!!

[Edited on 4-30-2006 by BaptistCanuk]

A form of discipline that is comon within the PCA and OPC is Suspension from the Table. This action is short of excommunication.

So you think a small child who is not a communing member of the church should be allowed to take the Lord's Supper?

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Originally posted by wsw201

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
It is not anyone's (elders included) responsibility (ie business) to forcefully STOP someone from taking communion. It is between an individual and God. Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, does it tell elders to stop someone from taking communion if the person has not been excommunicated. If they aren't members of your church, so what!! It is between THEM and God!!

[Edited on 4-30-2006 by BaptistCanuk]

A form of discipline that is comon within the PCA and OPC is Suspension from the Table. This action is short of excommunication.

So you think a small child who is not a communing member of the church should be allowed to take the Lord's Supper?

I know it's a form of discipline common with them. Is it Scriptural? If one is excommunicated they aren't even allowed in the Church unless they repent so forbidding them to partake of the Lord's Supper is moot.

If a small child can be baptized then yes I think they can partake of the Lord's Supper. I know of nowhere in Scripture where it says one has to be a member of the local church in order to partake of the Lord's Supper. It is, after all, the Lord's Table, not the elders'.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk

Originally posted by wsw201

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
It is not anyone's (elders included) responsibility (ie business) to forcefully STOP someone from taking communion. It is between an individual and God. Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, does it tell elders to stop someone from taking communion if the person has not been excommunicated. If they aren't members of your church, so what!! It is between THEM and God!!

[Edited on 4-30-2006 by BaptistCanuk]

A form of discipline that is comon within the PCA and OPC is Suspension from the Table. This action is short of excommunication.

So you think a small child who is not a communing member of the church should be allowed to take the Lord's Supper?

I know it's a form of discipline common with them. Is it Scriptural? If one is excommunicated they aren't even allowed in the Church unless they repent so forbidding them to partake of the Lord's Supper is moot.

If a small child can be baptized then yes I think they can partake of the Lord's Supper. I know of nowhere in Scripture where it says one has to be a member of the local church in order to partake of the Lord's Supper. It is, after all, the Lord's Table, not the elders'.

Brian,
For the record, excommunication does not shut the doors of the church on the excommunicated; in fact, we want them in the pew's; how may they repent unless the HS grants them repentance and what better place for conviction but under sound preaching. The table would be withheld and fellowship would be impersonal.

The table/sacraments/keys have been left as responsibilities of Christs leadership. Not everyone is allowed to distribute Christs sacraments. The eldership is responsible to not allow servants of the devil sit at a holy meal.

1Co 10:21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.



[Edited on 4-30-2006 by Scott Bushey]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

There is a helpful section in George Gillespie's Aaron's Rod Blossoming (pp. 223-229, Sprinkle Publications edtion, 1985) called "Whether it be a full discharge of duty to admonish a scandalous person of the danger of unworthy communicating? And whether a minister in giving him the sacrament after such admonition be no way guilty?"

Gillespie refutes the position of William Prynne on this point, who thought it sufficient for the minister to verbally fence the table after which his conscience might be clear in administering the sacrament to those who were known to be unfit (ie., ignorant, scandalous, excommunicated) to receive the sacrament, by showing that "maladministration" of the sacrament violates the 'apostolic rule, 1 Tim. v.22, "Be not partaker of other men's sins; keep thyself pure."' (p. 224)

Barring or suspension from Lord's Table is at the core of what is meant by excommunication; without it (ie., simply relying on verbal admonition alone), excommunication does not exist, hence there can be no church discipline.

George Gillespie: "Because admonition doth not exclude a person from any church privilege, nor from communion in any ordinance. And how can one be said to be under church censure who enjoyeth all church privileges?" (p. 224)

[Edited on 4-30-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by trevorjohnson
Peter Gray;

How fine must we slice the pie? Surely a practicing Sodomite is a lot worse than a Christian brother who is Dispensational?

Wouldn't you agree?


A practicing unrepentant sin = nonbeliever. Doctrinal differences = differing BROTHER. Brothers ought to partake. Those outside the church ought not.



How strict must communion be?


Maybe credo-baptists ought to be shunned? Maybe historic Premils? Those women who wear doilies on their heads! Those people who actually play music instead of singing acapella.....


How narrow do we want to get?

Trevor Johnson,

Doctrinal error = unrepentant sin. Maybe the difference between you and I is that you see any particular unrepentant sin as damnable whereas I do not. Repentence unto life is a general turning from sin unto God, it does not mean every partucular sin is instantaneously repented of. The Spirit illumines and convicts each believer differently. If someone has baptism wrong they are sinning, and until they recant they are an unrepentant sinner. The Lord's officers must enforce the Lord's requirements for admission to the Lord's Table - namely, the moral Law in its entirety. Breaking a commandment against the first table of the Law is as much a sin as the 2nd.

Many genuine regenerate believers must be barred from the Lord's Table. True Christians do live in sins against the 1st and 2nd table. There are almost as many controversies and disagreements amongst believers about matters of Christian living as there are about doctrine and worship. EG. abstinence from alcohol v moderation. Hypothetically, if alcohol is sinful, intemperate, a violation of the 6th and 7th commandment, aren't there still many saved Christians who drink yet aren;t they unrepentant of this particular sin? Dont you think in our day of 'liberalism' and 'enlightenment' there may be a sodomite who is convinced of sin and the mercy of God, who in sorrow and hatred of sin turns to Christ, yet is not convicted of the particular individual sin of sodomy? A believer. Yet would you let a Sodomite come to the Lord's Table?

Just b/c we think someone is saved that does not entitle them to communion with the church. Elders are not to judge the persons heart but their outward conduct, ie, their beliefs and their deeds by the whole Law. Paul exhorts us to separate ecclesiastically (excommunicate) from brethren that do not walk according to apostolic tradition. 2Th 3:6

 

[Mike]

God doesn't need our help at the table worrying about who gets fed. He protects it quite well Himself. He strikes people ill and dead for taking it unworthily. I would think our prohibition in fencing is out of compassion, when it comes down to it.

If an unbeliever or excommunicated person partakes, God is the one Who takes care of it.

[Edited on 4-30-2006 by Mike]

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by trevorjohnson
A very fine OPC church I attended while at SIL in Dallas Texas gave a verbal "fencing". Christ Covenant OPC which meets on the Wycliffe campus.

It was a very strong warning every Sunday to only partake if you are a believer in good standing with a church and not under discipline nor abiding in unrepentant sin.

It appears that this faithful pastor discharged his duties.



Is this the preferred model of fencing?

This is what I am suggesting. And verbal fencing is the stated position of the OPC. It seems more in line with 1 Cor. 11 than other ways.

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk

Originally posted by wsw201

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
It is not anyone's (elders included) responsibility (ie business) to forcefully STOP someone from taking communion. It is between an individual and God. Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, does it tell elders to stop someone from taking communion if the person has not been excommunicated. If they aren't members of your church, so what!! It is between THEM and God!!

[Edited on 4-30-2006 by BaptistCanuk]

A form of discipline that is comon within the PCA and OPC is Suspension from the Table. This action is short of excommunication.

So you think a small child who is not a communing member of the church should be allowed to take the Lord's Supper?

I know it's a form of discipline common with them. Is it Scriptural? If one is excommunicated they aren't even allowed in the Church unless they repent so forbidding them to partake of the Lord's Supper is moot.

If a small child can be baptized then yes I think they can partake of the Lord's Supper. I know of nowhere in Scripture where it says one has to be a member of the local church in order to partake of the Lord's Supper. It is, after all, the Lord's Table, not the elders'.

Brian,
For the record, excommunication does not shut the doors of the church on the excommunicated; in fact, we want them in the pew's; how may they repent unless the HS grants them repentance and what better place for conviction but under sound preaching. The table would be withheld and fellowship would be impersonal.

The table/sacraments/keys have been left as responsibilities of Christs leadership. Not everyone is allowed to distribute Christs sacraments. The eldership is responsible to not allow servants of the devil sit at a holy meal.

1Co 10:21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.



[Edited on 4-30-2006 by Scott Bushey]

Hey Scott, well it was always my understanding that excommunicating meant to kick someone out of the church until they repent, not forbid them from communion.

As for how they may repent, they have heard the preaching of the Word many times probably. God can bring it to their rembrance anytime and His Spirit can convict them any time in any way, due to the Word that they had heard in the past. I believe we are supposed to kick them out of the church and have no fellowship with them.

As for the elements and elders, I don't even know where in Scripture it says that only certain people can serve the elements. I believe that is something that has just been passed down from Catholic origins probably, where the ministers are the upper class and the "laity" are the lower class.

I believe the elders are responsible to keep unregenerate troublemakers out of the church, but when it comes to communion, that is up to each individual and their God. I would think it a serious sin if I were to forbid someone from communion. It is between them and God.

 

[Scott Bushey]

They are not kicked out of the church; they are excommunicated! There is a difference. We open our doors to the unregenerate; they freely come and go; some are members even.

Heb 12:10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.
Heb 12:11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.
Heb 12:12 Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees;
Heb 12:13 And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.
Heb 12:14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
They are not kicked out of the church; they are excommunicated! There is a difference. We open our doors to the unregenerate; they freely come and go; some are members even.

Heb 12:10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.
Heb 12:11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.
Heb 12:12 Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees;
Heb 12:13 And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.
Heb 12:14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

Well, that's not what I was taught. I was taught they are kicked out and you have no fellowship with them. You treat them worse than the unregenerate in hopes that Satan will "lay a beating" on him so to speak so that he will be driven to repentance.

 

[Peter]

Peter; You are correct to point out that doctrinal error equals unrepentant sin. It is true that we all will then enter heaven with some sort of unrepented of sin, merely because we all differ indoctrine (and thus we cannot all be right).

Yet, at what point is the sin bad enough to merit exclusion from the table? Dispensationalism? Credo-ism? Head-covering-ism?

Trevor, I dont think its really a question of the degree of evil in the error. Note that the question could be put to sins in the conduct of believers too. Do we exclude some one who doesn't think twice about letting a little cuss word slip? or spends too much time at the tv? or at the computer?

Why does one denomination have a separate existence from another? Either b/c they differ significantly in one or more matters of doctrine, worship, and/or practice or because of indifference. The latter is sin. God forbid that it would be the cause in any evangelical denomination. A denomination and its officers are sworn to a system of doctrine. They affirm one confession to be the truth and the contrary to be error. They ought to exercise discipline in accord with that agreed upon knowledge of the truth. So in my opinion the dividing line ought not to be how bad we think a sin is but the light of the Church. Of course the problem is compounded in the modern church by duplicitous subscriptional requirements to the confessions.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
They are not kicked out of the church; they are excommunicated! There is a difference. We open our doors to the unregenerate; they freely come and go; some are members even.

Heb 12:10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.
Heb 12:11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.
Heb 12:12 Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees;
Heb 12:13 And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.
Heb 12:14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

Well, that's not what I was taught. I was taught they are kicked out and you have no fellowship with them. You treat them worse than the unregenerate in hopes that Satan will "lay a beating" on him so to speak so that he will be driven to repentance.

The excommunicated are removed from the membership roles, the table is withheld and fellowship is restrained. All of this is bathed in prayer for the offenders soul.

 

[BaptistCanuk]

I agree that they are prayed for. However it has always been my understanding that they are kicked out of the church and we are not to fellowship with them. I will find out what our church officially believes on this but like I said, it has always been my understanding that they are kicked out and not given fellowship.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
I agree that they are prayed for. However it has always been my understanding that they are kicked out of the church and we are not to fellowship with them. I will find out what our church officially believes on this but like I said, it has always been my understanding that they are kicked out and not given fellowship.

Brian,
Thats fine; check. Keep in mind what I am telling you the orthodox church has done for the last 2000 years.

 

[BaptistCanuk]

And wasn't the "orthodox" church the Catholic church?

There is nothing about excommunication on our church website so I will have to talk to someone.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by BaptistCanuk
And wasn't the "orthodox" church the Catholic church?

There is nothing about excommunication on our church website so I will have to talk to someone.

You are aware that many great men of faith were Roman Catholic? The RC church was not always apostate........they were at one time orthodox. When they went south, the reformation picked up where they dropped the ball. So, when I say orthodox, I am speaking of them that had the ball and kept running with it.

 

[BaptistCanuk]

Yes I'm aware that many great men were Roman Catholic. But if they don't have the true Gospel would it matter if they were great men?

Maybe the RC was orthodox when it first began (300 years or so after the Church started) but it quickly was over run by paganism. The reason they baptized babies was not so they could go to heaven or anything; it was so those kids would grow up under the authority of the Church.

The Reformation may have picked up the ball but you do know that the RC considered the Reformers heretics and they blame them for the split up Church of today right?

 

[LadyFlynt]

Okay...HOW is headcovering a sin or even compared to Dispensationalism?!?! One is a doctrine...the other is a practice based on a scriptural command...whether one agrees or not. There is NOTHING that would make it a sin for a woman to cover her head in service!

End of off topic rant...

 

[BaptistCanuk]

 

[kevin.carroll]

We had another dicussion on the topic today. After all the reductio ad absurdum's and ad populum's were waded through, it became apparent that there was more agreement than originally was thought.

The point of disagreement came up to the question of how church discipline is enforced. That is something of a tricky question, given we live in a land where the church cannot appeal to the magistrate for enforcement of discipline.

 

[Theoretical]

This question (fencing the table) has always been somewhat at the back of my mind, particularly since I have always viewed Communion as being a more serious and critical matter than my old denomination (Methodist) did, even as a youth. None of my old church's procedures for Communion EVER said anything about only partaking if you were a believer (including the ultra-broad definition they used). I know a huge number of heretics (even by evangelical standards), including adult Sunday School teachers and even elders, partook of Communion everytime it was offered.

When I started attending my friend's LCMS church, I noticed some sharp differences in practice. First, communion was semi-closed, where LCMS members could freely partake, but where the pastor asked that non-Lutherans meet with him before partaking of the sacrament. The other thing is that anyone partaking of Communion, INCLUDING members, had to sign a little card confessing belief in the Lutheran perspective on Communion. This was done so that the elders could serve Communion without excessive concern for unbelievers partaking.

While I think requiring acceptance of a particular doctrinal position on Communion (outside of rejecting transubstantiation and the resacrificing of Christ) is a bit excessive, as I'd personally have the signed cards be more directly tied to the broader realm of Reformed beliefs as a more proper fencing (for Reformed denominations obviously). With that said, I wonder whether or not a modified form of this practice might not be a bad approach for Presbyterians to take with regard to Communion.

(as a Side note) Since attending my PCA church, I've noticed that this church serves Communion with the elements being passed along the aisles in most of its Communion services - is this normal for Presbyterians or a bit unusual, as all of my previous experience with Communion is altar-based?

 

[wsw201]

(as a Side note) Since attending my PCA church, I've noticed that this church serves Communion with the elements being passed along the aisles in most of its Communion services - is this normal for Presbyterians or a bit unusual, as all of my previous experience with Communion is altar-based?

Scott,

This is pretty much the norm.

 

[SRoper]

It is common, although I don't know if it is the norm. At our church we often come to the front to receive communion. Of course, there are no altars in Presbyterian churches, regardless of the method of distribution.