Self-Excommunication from the Lord's Supper

[Parakaleo]

I'm trying to understand Federal Vision sacramentology. I have heard that some proponents of FV theology do not believe in fencing the table beyond baptism. In fact, I have heard language used to the effect of, "I don't have the authority to excommunicate myself from the Lord's Table." Has anyone else heard these arguments spelled out more clearly? When did the Reformers see it appropriate for the believer to refrain from partaking?

 

[johnny]

I am not an expert on this, but I read somewhere that some Scottish Congregations fenced the table to prevent some of the local businessmen in the congregation (who were keeping mistresses) from attending the Lords Supper. There's a lot more to it than just that, and there are also some excellent threads on PB.

(This is in reply to your second question on when the reformers fenced the table)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Calvin:

40. Moreover, as we see that this sacred bread of the Lord’s Supper is spiritual food, is sweet and savoury, not less than salutary, to the pious worshippers of God, on tasting which they feel that Christ is their life, are disposed to give thanks, and exhorted to mutual love; so, on the other hand, it is converted into the most noxious poison to all whom it does not nourish and confirm in the faith, nor urge to thanksgiving and charity. For, just as corporeal food, when received into a stomach subject to morbid humours, becomes itself vitiated and corrupted, and rather hurts than nourishes, so this spiritual food also, if given to a soul polluted with malice and wickedness, plunges it into greater ruin, not indeed by any defect in the food, but because to the “defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure” (Titus 1:15), however much it may be sanctified by the blessing of the Lord. For, as Paul says, “Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord;” “eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). For men of this description, who without any spark of faith, without any zeal for charity, rush forward like swine to seize the Lord’s Supper, do not at all discern the Lord’s body. For, inasmuch as they do not believe that body to be their life, they put every possible affront upon it, stripping it of all its dignity, and profane and contaminate it by so receiving; inasmuch as while alienated and estranged from their brethren, they dare to mingle the sacred symbol of Christ’s body with their dissensions. No thanks to them if the body of Christ is not rent and torn to pieces. Wherefore they are justly held guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, which, with sacrilegious impiety, they so vilely pollute. By this unworthy eating, they bring judgment on themselves. For while they have no faith in Christ, yet, by receiving the sacrament, they profess to place their salvation only in him, and abjure all other confidence. Wherefore they themselves are their own accusers; they bear witness against themselves; they seal their own condemnation. Next being divided and separated by hatred and ill-will from their brethren, that is, from the members of Christ, they have no part in Christ, and yet they declare that the only safety is to communicate with Christ, and be united to him. For this reason Paul commands a man to examine himself before he eats of that bread, and drinks of that cup (1 Cor. 11:28). By this, as I understand, he means that each individual should descend into himself, and consider, first, whether, with inward confidence of heart, he leans on the salvation obtained by Christ, and with confession of the mouth, acknowledges it; and, secondly, whether with zeal for purity and holiness he aspires to imitate Christ; whether, after his example, he is prepared to give himself to his brethren, and to hold himself in common with those with whom he has Christ in common; whether, as he himself is regarded by Christ, he in his turn regards all his brethren as members of his body, or, like his members, desires to cherish, defend, and assist them, not that the duties of faith and charity can now be perfected in us, but because it behoves us to contend and seek, with all our heart, daily to increase our faith.

41. In seeking to prepare for eating worthily, men have often dreadfully harassed and tortured miserable consciences, and yet have in no degree attained the end. They have said that those eat worthily who are in a state of grace. Being in a state of grace, they have interpreted to be pure and free from all sin. By this definition, all the men that ever have been, and are upon the earth, were debarred from the use of this sacrament. For if we are to seek our worthiness from ourselves, it is all over with us; only despair and fatal ruin await us. Though we struggle to the utmost, we will not only make no progress, but then be most unworthy after we have laboured most to make ourselves worthy. To cure this ulcer, they have devised a mode of procuring worthiness, viz., after having, as far as we can, made an examination, and taken an account of all our actions, to expiate our unworthiness by contrition, confession, and satisfaction. Of the nature of this expiation we have spoken at the proper place (Book 3 chap. 4 sec. 2, 17, 27). As far as regards our present object, I say that such things give poor and evanescent comfort to alarmed and downcast consciences, struck with terror at their sins. For if the Lord, by his prohibition, admits none to partake of his Supper but the righteous and innocent, every man would require to be cautious before feeling secure of that righteousness of his own which he is told that God requires. But how are we to be assured that those who have done what in them lay have discharged their duty to God? Even were we assured of this, who would venture to assure himself that he had done what in him lay? Thus there being no certain security for our worthiness, access to the Supper would always be excluded by the fearful interdict, “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself.”

42. It is now easy to judge what is the nature, and who is the author, of that doctrine which prevails in the Papacy, and which, by its inhuman austerity, deprives and robs wretched sinners, oppressed with sorrow and trembling, of the consolation of this sacrament, a sacrament in which all that is delightful in the gospel was set before them. Certainly the devil could have no shorter method of destroying men than by thus infatuating them, and so excluding them from the taste and savour of this food with which their most merciful Father in heaven had been pleased to feed them. Therefore, lest we should rush over such a precipice, let us remember that this sacred feast is medicine to the sick, comfort to the sinner, and bounty to the poor; while to the healthy, the righteous, and the rich, if any such could be found, it would be of no value. For while Christ is therein given us for food, we perceive that without him we fail, pine, and waste away, just as hunger destroys the vigour of the body. Next, as he is given for life, we perceive that without him we are certainly dead. Wherefore, the best and only worthiness which we can bring to God, is to offer him our own vileness, and, if I may so speak, unworthiness, that his mercy may make us worthy; to despond in ourselves, that we may be consoled in him; to humble ourselves, that we may be elevated by him; to accuse ourselves, that we may be justified by him; to aspire, moreover, to the unity which he recommends in the Supper; and, as he makes us all one in himself, to desire to have all one soul, one heart, one tongue. If we ponder and meditate on these things, we may be shaken, but will never be overwhelmed by such considerations as these, how shall we, who are devoid of all good, polluted by the defilements of sin, and half dead, worthily eat the body of the Lord? We shall rather consider that we, who are poor, are coming to a benevolent giver, sick to a physician, sinful to the author of righteousness, in fine, dead to him who gives life; that worthiness which is commanded by God, consists especially in faith, which places all things in Christ, nothing in ourselves, and in charity, charity which, though imperfect, it may be sufficient to offer to God, that he may increase it, since it cannot be fully rendered. Some, concurring with us in holding that worthiness consists in faith and charity, have widely erred in regard to the measure of worthiness, demanding a perfection of faith to which nothing can be added, and a charity equivalent to that which Christ manifested towards us. And in this way, just as the other class, they debar all men from access to this sacred feast. For, were their view well founded, every one who receives must receive unworthily, since all, without exception, are guilty, and chargeable with imperfection. And certainly it were too stupid, not to say idiotical, to require to the receiving of the sacrament a perfection which would render the sacrament vain and superfluous, because it was not instituted for the perfect, but for the infirm and weak, to stir up, excite, stimulate, exercise the feeling of faith and charity, and at the same time correct the deficiency of both.


Calvin, J. (1997). Institutes of the Christian religion. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

From A Puritan Theology:

Perkins said that to be qualified to receive the Supper, one must have a knowledge of God, the fall of man, and the promise of salvation by Christ, plus true faith in Christ and repentance from sin, with faith and repentance being renewed daily. If a person with these qualifications hesitates at the Table because he feels he has “a corrupt and rebellious heart,” Perkins said, “thou art well disposed to the Lord’s Table, when thou art lively touched with a sense of thy crooked disposition.” Medicine is for the diseased.76 That does not say that believers may come unrepentant over known sins, for “the Corinthians had both faith and repentance; yet because they failed in this point, of the renovation of their faith and repentance, they are said many of them to be unworthy receivers, and to eat judgment to themselves.”77
The Puritans did not require a believer to have full assurance to partake of the Supper. Assurance was desirable but not necessary.78 Edward Taylor (c. 1642–1729) wrote, “It [assurance] is not that which anyone is to wait for in order to his coming to the Lord’s Supper.”79 “It’s not the faith of assurance that is necessary to this ordinance,” Taylor said, “but of affiance and trust.”80 Neither was moral perfection required. Edwards wrote: “Your sins need to be no hindrance. Christ procured those benefits for such. He gave Himself for such.”81 Doolittle went further, saying a person may come to the Lord’s Table “if a man cannot say he loves God, and cannot say he has faith, but yet finds he hungers and thirsts for Christ.”82 Thomas Watson (c. 1620–1686) summarized this thinking in stating, “A weak faith can lay hold on a strong Christ. A palsied hand may tie the knot in marriage.”83 Henry made this practical appeal: “If thou doubt, therefore, whether Christ be thine, put the matter out of doubt by a present consent to him: I take Christ to be mine, wholly, only, and forever mine.”84


Beeke, J. R., & Jones, M. (2012). A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (pp. 752–753). Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books.

 

[Gforce9]

From A Puritan Theology:

Perkins said that to be qualified to receive the Supper, one must have a knowledge of God, the fall of man, and the promise of salvation by Christ, plus true faith in Christ and repentance from sin, with faith and repentance being renewed daily. If a person with these qualifications hesitates at the Table because he feels he has “a corrupt and rebellious heart,” Perkins said, “thou art well disposed to the Lord’s Table, when thou art lively touched with a sense of thy crooked disposition.” Medicine is for the diseased.76 That does not say that believers may come unrepentant over known sins, for “the Corinthians had both faith and repentance; yet because they failed in this point, of the renovation of their faith and repentance, they are said many of them to be unworthy receivers, and to eat judgment to themselves.”77
The Puritans did not require a believer to have full assurance to partake of the Supper. Assurance was desirable but not necessary.78 Edward Taylor (c. 1642–1729) wrote, “It [assurance] is not that which anyone is to wait for in order to his coming to the Lord’s Supper.”79 “It’s not the faith of assurance that is necessary to this ordinance,” Taylor said, “but of affiance and trust.”80 Neither was moral perfection required. Edwards wrote: “Your sins need to be no hindrance. Christ procured those benefits for such. He gave Himself for such.”81 Doolittle went further, saying a person may come to the Lord’s Table “if a man cannot say he loves God, and cannot say he has faith, but yet finds he hungers and thirsts for Christ.”82 Thomas Watson (c. 1620–1686) summarized this thinking in stating, “A weak faith can lay hold on a strong Christ. A palsied hand may tie the knot in marriage.”83 Henry made this practical appeal: “If thou doubt, therefore, whether Christ be thine, put the matter out of doubt by a present consent to him: I take Christ to be mine, wholly, only, and forever mine.”84


Beeke, J. R., & Jones, M. (2012). A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (pp. 752–753). Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books.

I appreciate those quotes much......thanks for posting, Rich. If one has to come to the table pure, I would never come again. If I had to come without doubts, I would never come. If I had to come with surety that I had repented purely, I would never come. The beauty of our Presbyterian polity is that the presbyters make such judgment calls. Thanks be to God for good and faithful church officers.
Within independency (I came from various branches of it myself), it really is left to the individual....in all his subjectiveness....

 

[Romans922]

No member of Christ's Church has the authority to self-excommunicate. That authority is given to the undershepherds of Christ's Church.

 

[Leslie]

No member of Christ's Church has the authority to self-excommunicate. That authority is given to the undershepherds of Christ's Church.

Huh? Do you mean that if I'm struggling with a particular sin, that I need someone else's permission to pass by the bread and wine? Would that not involve forcing confession to the officer involved?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Huh? Do you mean that if I'm struggling with a particular sin, that I need someone else's permission to pass by the bread and wine? Would that not involve forcing confession to the officer involved?

Sounds like AB is disagreeing with the over-the-top assertion of an earlier claim: that deferring on partaking for some reason of conscience is the equivalent of EX-communication. Which it is nothing of the kind.

I'm not informed well-enough of the whole FV sacramentology (which is ill-defined anyway, and has an ad hoc quality insofar as "movements" don't nail things down and get everybody on the same page). But the OP had someone apparently alleging he could not stay away from the table, period, on his own authority. If the table is being pushed on people with that degree of ferocity (necessity), it is unlikely those doing the pushing are likely to raise any but the most radical of barriers. Hence, any refraining (or modest restraint) becomes the equivalent of full barring.

 

[Romans922]

Huh? Do you mean that if I'm struggling with a particular sin, that I need someone else's permission to pass by the bread and wine? Would that not involve forcing confession to the officer involved?

Sounds like AB is disagreeing with the over-the-top assertion of an earlier claim: that deferring on partaking for some reason of conscience is the equivalent of EX-communication. Which it is nothing of the kind.

I'm not informed well-enough of the whole FV sacramentology (which is ill-defined anyway, and has an ad hoc quality insofar as "movements" don't nail things down and get everybody on the same page). But the OP had someone apparently alleging he could not stay away from the table, period, on his own authority. If the table is being pushed on people with that degree of ferocity (necessity), it is unlikely those doing the pushing are likely to raise any but the most radical of barriers. Hence, any refraining (or modest restraint) becomes the equivalent of full barring.

First, I'd say that forcing someone to partake is wrong (if that's what you are saying the FV do or alleged to do). I would never say you could not refrain from the table if you are a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. However, I am saying you should not refrain from the table. If there is a particular sin that you are dealing with that's exactly what the table is for, to strengthen one's faith against sin and towards Christ/God. It is to spur you on in love and zeal, and to quiet the conscience.

Refraining from it is showing forth a division in the communion you have with other believers and with Christ. So while not literally excommunicating one's self, practically the one who refrains is living as though they are excommunicated. If you are Christ's, He says eat of Him and drink of Him. Wouldn't refraining be disobedience for the Christian?

Bruce you mentioned conscience, we ought not to go against conscience. But if one's (a believer's) conscience is leading them to go against the command of Christ then perhaps it is wise first to go seek the wisdom of one's elders.

I believe this is all being referred to in the quotes Rich quoted above...

 

[Ed Walsh]

If you are Christ's, He says eat of Him and drink of Him. Wouldn't refraining be disobedience for the Christian?

I think it would. In the Lord's Supper, are we not put between a rock and a hard place?

I Corinthians 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
I Corinthians 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

Verse 27 - Do not take unworthily. There's a command.

Verse 28 - But you "must" partake. a) Examine yourself and, b) "eat of that bread, and drink of that cup."

 

[Parakaleo]

The quotes above and the relevant Scripture, taken together, have the force of "Always come to the Table, unless you are an unbeliever, ignorant (unable to examine or discern), or actively spreading division in the church". Understood in this way, refraining from the Supper would be akin to self-excommunication. If you refrain as a believer, you are owning that you are a divisive character in the Body--and even if you were not guilty of this before, you are now since you have refrained from the Supper. Would it not be better to let Christ, through His elders, make this determination for you?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Let's think about this. You think to yourself: "I'm not right. [Whatever it is, means] I'm not in the right place. Maybe I'm harboring some resentment against a brother, and I know I shouldn't be; I know I'm not fighting this sin like I ought." No one is sinless; no one is close to being "as they ought." Maybe this person needs to be coming for a strengthening grace. But should we say we know that for sure?

What if a man is dabbling in this or that, playing with fire and hiding it away--for him to say "I'm going in to the Table, because if I don't people might start asking uncomfortable questions," is folly. Shouldn't he be at least questioning his own wisdom? Shouldn't he be more discerning?

Or take it the other direction:

Mt.5:23-24 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

This guy doesn't need to be coming to the Table, before he's reconciled. Call this the schism issue, if you will. But it sure seems like an important issue a man should be discerning, prior to his decision whether to commune.

Bottom line, no elder knows the secret heart of another better than the individual. And to say that the individual has no business ever deciding (even if it is not the last word) on his own participation seems practically eliminative of the category of discernment. It isn't bare intellection or desire that brings us to the Table.

Not partaking may be a wordless plea for pastoral intervention.

And we aren't as Reformed ignorant that what we partake of is either health or death, weal or woe. It smacks of sacramentalism to say that the Elements can't help but do me good, so long as I have a modicum of faith. Some in Corinth were dead--albeit in heaven--asleep (in faith) because of a lack of discernment. Think about it.

 

[Ed Walsh]

This guy doesn't need to be coming to the Table, before he's reconciled.

Mat. 5:23 is certainly one of several exceptions to my "rock-and-a-hard-place" post earlier. I do agree that there are times to refrain from partaking; when you can't work things out by yourself and need help.

BTW - I got a double post, and I saw someone else also got one in another thread. Is something wrong with the board? Is anyone else getting these? Or is it just me?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Let's make sure we clarify with respect to the OP about what is in basic error about "FV-theology" (ad hoc as it is).

The reason I quoted Calvin and Beeke/Jones was to demonstrate a consistent Reformed message of the necessity of self-examination. FV theology, in general, denies the need for a believer to be mature enough to self-examine. For many of them, the idea that a child has a "seed-like" faith is sufficient to come to the Table because participating in the Lord's Supper has a quality all of its own that *works* whether or not the participant understands what or why he is eating bread or drinking wine. It just "works" because it's the Lord's Supper and the only thing you need to really wrestle with is "...am I in the Covenant." Well, as long as you're still joined to the visible Church you're in the Covenant and so come to the Table because you can't "excommunicate" yourself from membership in the Church and, therefore, come to the Table.

At issue, then is that the FV denies that it is not enough to be merely in the Visible Kingdom or external administration of the COG (namely a member in good standing in the local Church) in order to partake. They deny the necessity of self-examination.

The discussion about whether or not I, the one examining myself, or the Elders should make the decision to not partake. I agree the decision to not partake is not "self-excommunication" because that is a point of Church discipline. That said, it is not really germane to the question of what an FV proponent means by the term. They believe that the very act of not partaking, for any reason other than real excommunication, is not appropriate.

 

[MW]

In the Lord's Supper, are we not put between a rock and a hard place?

Thankfully the Saviour is there cushioning the hard place of judgment and calling us to Himself as the Rock whence flows the living water.

 

[Peairtach]

The more conscious you are of your sins and distressed by them and the more you are therefore looking in faith to Christ, the more you may sometimes/often feel that you should let the elements pass you by. But - paradoxically - the more you are in this spiritual position the more you are in a healthy case to partake.

This is one of the problems with some people who "lack assurance", that they - paradoxically - sometimes mistake a healthy deep awareness of, sinsitivity to, and distress at, sin, for a sign of their being unconverted.

Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults. (Psalm 19:12)

A person may have a hidden fault - something known only to himself and God, which isn't presumptuous (Ps 19:13) and to be dealt with by the session - because of which he feels he should let the cup pass by. But there's not a true believer in Christ who doesn't more or less have such, and it may be a question whether foregoing the Lord's Supper in such cases will do more harm than good.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

For many of them, the idea that a child has a "seed-like" faith is sufficient to come to the Table because participating in the Lord's Supper has a quality all of its own that *works* whether or not the participant understands what or why he is eating bread or drinking wine. It just "works" because it's the Lord's Supper and the only thing you need to really wrestle with is "...am I in the Covenant."

This might be a bit off topic but FV does paedo-communion because they view that those in covenant are in fact in union with Christ. Since children are in the covenant, they are Christians and should partake of the Lord's Supper.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

For many of them, the idea that a child has a "seed-like" faith is sufficient to come to the Table because participating in the Lord's Supper has a quality all of its own that *works* whether or not the participant understands what or why he is eating bread or drinking wine. It just "works" because it's the Lord's Supper and the only thing you need to really wrestle with is "...am I in the Covenant."

This might be a bit off topic but FV does paedo-communion because they view that those in covenant are in fact in union with Christ. Since children are in the covenant, they are Christians and should partake of the Lord's Supper.

Not off topic. Yes, but they'll say that everyone in visible communion is, "in some sense", in union with Christ.

 

[Reformed Roman]

I know some times in my biggest struggles against sin, were the times that I needed common the most. It wasn't the fact that I sinned that should bring me away from the Lord's table. What should bring you away from the Lord's table is unrepentant sin. Where you know your sin, your refusing to repent and your refusing to reconcile with other brothers and sisters. It seems like that's the understanding I get from passages above, and knowing the unrepentant sin that I'm refusing to represent for, well the Elders won't always know about it. So while Elders should be able to speak on this matter if necessary, we are responsible ourselves for how we handle the Lord's table

 

[MW]

Fencing the table should include inviting and debarring, and the inviting should have an encouragement for the weak and doubting who have any measure of sincere faith to come forward and communicate for the strengthening of their faith. I often use the apt picture our Lord has given of the mustard seed. No matter how small the faith it is true faith and with the Lord's blessing great things grow from it.

There can be no self-excommunication because that would mean the individual is handing himself over to Satan. This would defeat the purpose of handing the individual over to Satan, which is to bring the soul to repentance. The action requires that it be done by another (the overseers acting on behalf of the corporate body) because the individual is not responding to lesser forms of discipline.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

For many of them, the idea that a child has a "seed-like" faith is sufficient to come to the Table because participating in the Lord's Supper has a quality all of its own that *works* whether or not the participant understands what or why he is eating bread or drinking wine. It just "works" because it's the Lord's Supper and the only thing you need to really wrestle with is "...am I in the Covenant."

This might be a bit off topic but FV does paedo-communion because they view that those in covenant are in fact in union with Christ. Since children are in the covenant, they are Christians and should partake of the Lord's Supper.

Not off topic. Yes, but they'll say that everyone in visible communion is, "in some sense", in union with Christ.

Right. Well, I think Guy Waters is very helpful on this. He points out that Wilkins and Douglas (and others) teach a mono-covenantal view and deny decreedal election. Instead, they teach "covenantal election". Thus, when you are in the visible church (whether infant or adult) you are in union with Christ because you are in covenant with God. They do not believe in a visible/invisible distinction. Also, they believe that the Lord's Supper is part of being in union with Christ and is applied to your justification. Their views of the sacraments are Lutheran at best. They view the Lord's Supper (and baptism) as graces in themselves, rather then means of grace.

 

[Parakaleo]

In researching this further, I came across a Questions & Answers entry on the OPC website: http://opc.org/qa.html?question_id=362

"So is today's pastor to apply Paul's warning to the members of his congregation? Is he required to tell his people, or some of them, not to approach the holy table? I do not believe so. (In the OPC with which I worship, early in the worship service the congregation audibly confesses our sins and receives the Lord's absolution. Is more "preparation" needed?) In my judgment, it is unconscionable to place believers struggling with doubts and fears under a burden and cloud of guilt. As a minister, I tremble to think of being responsible for a weak, fearful believer keeping himself from God's grace in the sacrament."

In this man's opinion, no warning is needed at all. This, to me, seems more in line with the covenantal election and the sacrament as a grace in itself. What about trembling over being responsible for causing someone to sin?

Again, if a righteous person turns from his righteousness and commits injustice, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die. Because you have not warned him, he shall die for his sin, and his righteous deeds that he has done shall not be remembered, but his blood I will require at your hand. But if you warn the righteous person not to sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live, because he took warning, and you will have delivered your soul.” Ezekiel 3:20-21

 

[Contra_Mundum]

From the OPC BCO, Directory for Worship, III.C.3.

3. Invitation and Fencing the Table

The minister shall then declare who may come to, and who are excluded from, the Lord’s Table according to the Word of God. He may use the following or like words:

It is my privilege as a minister of Christ to invite all who are right with God and his church, through faith in the Lord Jesus, to come to the Lord’s Table. If you
have received Christ and are resting upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to you in the gospel, if you are a baptized and professing communicant member
in good standing in a church that professes the gospel of God’s free grace in Jesus Christ, and if you live penitently and seek to walk in godliness before the Lord, then this Supper is for you, and I invite you in Christ’s name to eat the bread and drink the cup.

At the same time, God’s Word says, “Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth [eats] and drinketh [drinks] unworthily, eateth [eats] and drinketh [drinks] damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body” (1 Cor. 11:27–29). If you are not trusting in Jesus Christ as your Savior, if you are not a member of a faithful Christian church, if you are not living penitently and seeking to walk in godliness before the Lord, then I warn you in the name of Christ not to approach the Holy Table of the Lord.

This warning is not aimed to keep the humble and contrite from the Table of the Lord, as if it were for those who were free from sin. In fact, it is for sinners that our Lord gives this Supper as a means of grace. Through the elements of bread and wine, our Lord graciously gives himself and all his benefits to everyone who eats and drinks in a worthy manner, discerning the body of the Lord. It is one thing to eat and drink in a worthy manner. It is very different, however, to imagine that we are worthy to eat and drink. We dare not come to the Lord’s Table as if we were worthy and righteous in ourselves. We come in a worthy manner if we recognize that we are unworthy sinners who need our Savior, if we consciously discern his body given for our sins, if we hunger and thirst after Christ, giving thanks for his grace, trusting in his merits, feeding on him by faith, renewing our covenant with him and his people.

Let us examine our minds and hearts to determine whether such discernment is ours, to the end that we may partake to the glory of God and to our growth in the grace of Christ. Come then with joy and thankfulness to the Lord’s Table. The Lord’s Supper is medicine for poor, sick souls. Come to Jesus and find rest, refreshing, and nourishment for your weak and weary soul.
​

(added emphasis in the section is mine)

I'd like to think the minister who penned the answer to the question on the website is in full agreement with the stance of the OPC expressed in this section of its constitutional documents; and acknowledges his duty to offer the warning it contains. We should read his specific Answer to a particular Question in a focused way, and charitably.

Some folks may feel cumbered with a great many (overloaded) with extra-biblical duties and requirements, and end up asking the foolish question, "Have I DONE enough to open the door to the table?" The one giving the answer seems most desirous to avoid that implication. Whatever proper preparation is, it is NOT a set of exercises and jumps-through-hoops and boxes checked, the not-doing of which is the sign I'm/you're/he's not ready.

I take it as a given: no tender-hearted minister, bearing love toward all the sheep of his flock, is over-eager to see anyone present who is apparently eligible to partake refrain. Especially if he was less open with the invitation than he might have been. He shouldn't impose any greater burden than Christ does, through his apostles.

But the same love must steel him to declare the warning, and advise the proper degree of self-examination. He must supply the pointed warning suitable to them that need it.

 

[Ed Walsh]

John Calvin on Worthiness

We come in a worthy manner if we recognize that we are unworthy sinners who need our Savior

I have always liked Calvin's take on worthiness:

Therefore, this is the worthiness—the best and only kind we can bring to God—to offer our vileness and (so to speak) our unworthiness to him so that his mercy may make us worthy of him; to despair in ourselves so that we may be comforted in him; to abase ourselves so that we may be lifted up by him; to accuse ourselves so that we may be justified by him; moreover, to aspire to that unity which he commends to us in his Supper; and, as he makes all of us one in himself, to desire one soul, one heart, one tongue for us all. If we have weighed and considered these things well, these thoughts, though they may stagger us, will never lay us low. How could we, needy and bare of all good, befouled with sins, half-dead, eat the Lord’s body worthily? Rather, we shall think that we, as being poor, come to a kindly giver; as sick, to a physician; as sinners, to the Author of righteousness; finally, as dead, to him who gives us life. We shall think that the worthiness, which is commanded by God, consists chiefly in faith, which reposes all things in Christ, but nothing in ourselves; secondly, in love—and that very love which, though imperfect, is enough to offer to God, that he may increase it to something better, inasmuch as it cannot be offered in completeness.

Others, agreeing with us, that worthiness itself consists in faith and love, still are far in error on the standard itself of worthiness, requiring, as they do, a perfection of faith which cannot at all be attained, and a love equal to that which Christ has shown toward us. But, by so doing, they, like those previously mentioned, drive all men from approaching this most holy Supper. For if their view obtained, no one would receive it except unworthily, since all to a man would be held guilty and convicted of their own imperfection. And it would be excessive stupidity—not to mention foolishness—to require such perfection in receiving the Sacrament as would make the Sacrament void and superfluous. For it is a sacrament ordained not for the perfect, but for the weak and feeble, to awaken, arouse, stimulate, and exercise the feeling of faith and love, indeed, to correct the defect of both.

Excerpted from Calvin’s Institutes IV, xvii, 42

 

[Parakaleo]

Rev. Buchanan, yes of course I read his answer charitably. I don't suppose any faithful minister would want to hinder a fearful saint from coming by a heavy-handed warning. I currently use a variation of the invitation and fencing you quoted from the OPC Directory for Worship (the ARP's Directory does not have a well-developed invitation and fencing included). What do you think of the Ezekiel 3 passage? What significance does it have upon the fencing of the Table in the Lord's Supper?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

What do you think of the Ezekiel 3 passage? What significance does it have upon the fencing of the Table in the Lord's Supper?

Rev. Law,

Ezekiel's prophetic utterance is a charge to the man of God; in our context he's a minister of Word and Sacrament. Serving the Lord's Table is a function of discipline; we admit, and we bar. I suppose that text has some relevance to our work.

Some who hang back must be summoned forward. Some who would enter must be restrained. In between are those who compliantly, reverently, knowledgeably, obediently, prayerfully, thankfully, penitentially, dutifully, eagerly, tremblingly, needily, maybe even reluctantly come. Pastoring well is inseparable from the requirement to know the flock, and how to adequately address that unique congregation.

If we have a default, when it comes to the members who are not under formal restriction, I think ministers should be winsome and inviting, not terrible and interrogating.

I can tell you experientially, on one occasion quite apart from any prior knowledge of mine or of the elders, or any more than ordinary verbal fencing in the not-extravagant way of our DPW, our elders serving have encountered at least one case of voluntary refraint. Now what do you suppose that led to? I'll say what you can easily guess: it led to sensitive pastoral investigation and new prayer and support for that Christian. And renewal at our next communion of participation by that person.

I could be wrong, but I think that's an example of proper function of self-examination.

 

[Parakaleo]

I could be wrong, but I think that's an example of proper function of self-examination

Yes. I believe so, too. That is a very helpful example. As a new minister, I could have never imagined the difficulty of properly inviting and fencing the Table of our Lord. This interchange has been profitable.

Love in Christ,

 

[Captain Picard]

For many of them, the idea that a child has a "seed-like" faith is sufficient to come to the Table because participating in the Lord's Supper has a quality all of its own that *works* whether or not the participant understands what or why he is eating bread or drinking wine. It just "works" because it's the Lord's Supper and the only thing you need to really wrestle with is "...am I in the Covenant."

This might be a bit off topic but FV does paedo-communion because they view that those in covenant are in fact in union with Christ. Since children are in the covenant, they are Christians and should partake of the Lord's Supper.

Not off topic. Yes, but they'll say that everyone in visible communion is, "in some sense", in union with Christ.

Right. Well, I think Guy Waters is very helpful on this. He points out that Wilkins and Douglas (and others) teach a mono-covenantal view and deny decreedal election. Instead, they teach "covenantal election". Thus, when you are in the visible church (whether infant or adult) you are in union with Christ because you are in covenant with God. They do not believe in a visible/invisible distinction. Also, they believe that the Lord's Supper is part of being in union with Christ and is applied to your justification. Their views of the sacraments are Lutheran at best. They view the Lord's Supper (and baptism) as graces in themselves, rather then means of grace.

It's an overgeneralization at best to say that Waters' book on the subject described everyone it critiqued as denying decretal election and making the Supper an element of justification.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

For many of them, the idea that a child has a "seed-like" faith is sufficient to come to the Table because participating in the Lord's Supper has a quality all of its own that *works* whether or not the participant understands what or why he is eating bread or drinking wine. It just "works" because it's the Lord's Supper and the only thing you need to really wrestle with is "...am I in the Covenant."

This might be a bit off topic but FV does paedo-communion because they view that those in covenant are in fact in union with Christ. Since children are in the covenant, they are Christians and should partake of the Lord's Supper.

Not off topic. Yes, but they'll say that everyone in visible communion is, "in some sense", in union with Christ.

Right. Well, I think Guy Waters is very helpful on this. He points out that Wilkins and Douglas (and others) teach a mono-covenantal view and deny decreedal election. Instead, they teach "covenantal election". Thus, when you are in the visible church (whether infant or adult) you are in union with Christ because you are in covenant with God. They do not believe in a visible/invisible distinction. Also, they believe that the Lord's Supper is part of being in union with Christ and is applied to your justification. Their views of the sacraments are Lutheran at best. They view the Lord's Supper (and baptism) as graces in themselves, rather then means of grace.

It's an overgeneralization at best to say that Waters' book on the subject described everyone it critiqued as denying decretal election and making the Supper an element of justification.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Waters isn't exhaustive, but he critiques the major tenets of the Federal Vision movement. Waters is not the only one. Otis, RCUS report, RPCUS report, and many others have documented these things very well. Federal Vision teaches a Roman (at best Lutheran) sacramentalism. Instead of the Lord's Supper being a means of grace, it IS grace.

 

[Captain Picard]

Not all the signatories of the joint statement on Federal Vision critiqued in Waters deny decretal election or make the ordinances justifying. Waters explicitly says so. Some of them do, which Waters documents, but the FV movement is not a monolith. Which Waters also documents.

He's not exhaustive, true. Denial of decretal election can be described as a "feature of the Federal Vision movement", true.

The idea that all signatories of the aforementioned document deny decretal election: false. I know R Scott Clark and others have said that all the signatories hold denial of DE, baptismal regeneration, progressive justification, and a host of other things, but that isn't borne out by Waters' work, or the statements of all the signatories in question.