Session-Controlled Communion & 1st Corninthians 11
- Thread starter Backwoods Presbyterian
- Start date
- Status
doesn't the passage say to examine yourself instead of "have your session examine your worthiness..."
I am glad that communion tokens have now only become a historical curiosity. If you are baptized into a local church and have no scandalous sin that the elders need to wtihdraw the elemens from you for, the responsibility seems to then be on the person partaking, not a man-made court.
I am glad that communion tokens have now only become a historical curiosity. If you are baptized into a local church and have no scandalous sin that the elders need to wtihdraw the elemens from you for, the responsibility seems to then be on the person partaking, not a man-made court.
A5pointer
Puritan Board Sophomore
I interpret the passage differently. None of us is worthy if examined. Paul's issue in context was how the Corinthians were seperating over socio-economic lines to eat meals before the communion. The haves were shutting out the have nots. Thus fracturing the "body". Paul says to examine one's self to see if the body is rightly judged. I think his intent is to have each person discern the "body" rightly. The "body" that is the church. Makes sense of the context. 
Sessions are not "man-made courts". They are biblically ordained courts made up of officers whom Christ has given to the church.
Bygracealone
Puritan Board Sophomore
If you truly believe church courts are man-made, then is it really any better to have a man-made court of one be judge and jury to consider the matter?
The Scriptures tell us there is wisdom in a multitude of counselors and we're further told that Christ has given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to His Church via the leaders of the Church (elders). Elders are responsible for inviting people into the membership of the Church and excommunicating members when necessary. Why would it be so strange that Christ should also give them the responsibility as to who may be invited to the table of a particular congregation?
Much more to say, but not much time to say it right now.
In His grace,
Steve
Mindaboo
Puritan Board Graduate
Our pastor fences the table everytime we have communion by stating only those who are members/believers of an evangelical church can partake. We all have a responsibility in communion. I have attended churches where I didn't feel like the sacraments were handled properly and I did not partake in communion. I think that is part of "discerning the body". The session does have a right to determine whether it would be appropriate for a person to take communion, after all, they are there for our protection and they are the ones accountable to maintain the peace and purity of the church. In the PCA we make vows to submit to the authority placed over us. (the session) I have heard of instances where someone was living in open, blatant sin and the session had that person refrain from the table.
There should be a balance. Last week I attended a UMC children's choir concert where they prepared the table for communion, it was awful. The female pastor got up and talked about how we are all forgiven and everyone of us should come accept the forgiveness of Jesus. She allowed children and I am sure a lot of the adults had no clue what was going on. It was really bad. My friend, my daughter and myself were the only ones who refrained from communion.
We always need to be examining our selves and discerning the body.
There should be a balance. Last week I attended a UMC children's choir concert where they prepared the table for communion, it was awful. The female pastor got up and talked about how we are all forgiven and everyone of us should come accept the forgiveness of Jesus. She allowed children and I am sure a lot of the adults had no clue what was going on. It was really bad. My friend, my daughter and myself were the only ones who refrained from communion.
We always need to be examining our selves and discerning the body.
Galatians220
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Oh, they're not a historical curiosity everywhere. I know of a church that still uses them...
Margaret
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
Oh, they're not a historical curiosity everywhere. I know of a church that still uses them...
Margaret
And God Bless them for it Margaret.
They are God ordained men who are creating a man-made practice (i.e. a court to examine candidates for the Lord's Supper). THe men are God-ordained, their authority is God-ordained and yet this process of creating a court and interview system prior to the Supper is not god-ordained.
I have been asked to preach in churches and yet could not partake the supper with them due to their overly rigid fencing rules (wasn't around for an interview the week before...no coin for me). This is silly. If we are baptized members of a local church, we examine ourselves unless clear sin causes the elders to question us.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
The best way to do it for visitors In my humble opinion is to make an announcement before the service starts (since there should be no such thing as a communion only service) and have them meet with the Session then, just like they did for me and my wife a few others last night at North Hills RP.
Mushroom
Puritan Board Doctor
So would you then say that no level of control should be excersized by a Session over the sacraments, Pergs? Just hand out the elements to whoever would take them? Even a warning prior to administration would appear to be an excersize of some control, where do you think the line should be drawn, if at all?
At the OPC church in Dallas Texas where I want briefly (awesome church, met on the SIL center, forget the name) they celebrated the supper every week and announced the warning from Scripture so that all could fence themselves.
At my home church of Bible Baptist those that give the supper knew who was a member and who was not (small church). They talked to guests before the service. Members were assumed to be partakers and no prior special interview time to each member was done.
This is far from the free milk and cookies for all that you indict me of.
At my home church of Bible Baptist those that give the supper knew who was a member and who was not (small church). They talked to guests before the service. Members were assumed to be partakers and no prior special interview time to each member was done.
This is far from the free milk and cookies for all that you indict me of.
Davidius
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
To simply say before the sacrament that only baptized members in good standing of a Christian church may partake seems to be no more and no less than what Paul was doing in the letter. Although I was in full support of an interview process when I was a more gung-ho, newly Reformed guy, I think I am now with Pergie on this one.
Ginny Dohms
Puritan Board Freshman
Calvin certainly believed that a pastor's duty was to protect the Lord's Supper, and he was willing to defend it with his life:
"The eventful morning dawned. The bell invited the people to the church of St. Peter. The Libertines were present, with their swords, determined to communicate. Calvin preached on the intention of the sacred ordinance, and spoke of the state of mind necessary for obedience to the Lord’s command. At the close, he said: “As for me, so long as God shall leave me here, since He hath given me fortitude, and I have received it from Him, I will employ it, whatever betide; and I will guide myself by my Master’s rule, which to me is clear and well known. As we are now about to receive the holy Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ, if anyone who has been debarred by the Consistory shall approach this table, though it should cost my life, I will show myself such as I ought to be.”
He then left the pulpit, and stood at the table. Removing the white cloth, and covering the bread and wine with his hands, he said, with a voice that rang through the building, “These hands you may crush; these arms you may lop off; my life you may take; my blood is yours, you may shed it but you shall never force me to give holy things to the profane, and dishonor the table of my God.” As if the very power of God prevailed, a calm succeeded, and the Libertines retired; the congregation opening a passage for their retreat. A solemn silence enabled the Reformer to celebrate the sacred ordinance in awe, as if the Lord Himself had been manifestly present.
The question in the mind of Calvin was not whether he or the Libertines should succeed; but whether the Reformation should be wrecked at the very table of the Lord. He stood firm; and victory remained with him."
The entire account can be found in 'The History of Protestantism' by James A. Wylie
"The eventful morning dawned. The bell invited the people to the church of St. Peter. The Libertines were present, with their swords, determined to communicate. Calvin preached on the intention of the sacred ordinance, and spoke of the state of mind necessary for obedience to the Lord’s command. At the close, he said: “As for me, so long as God shall leave me here, since He hath given me fortitude, and I have received it from Him, I will employ it, whatever betide; and I will guide myself by my Master’s rule, which to me is clear and well known. As we are now about to receive the holy Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ, if anyone who has been debarred by the Consistory shall approach this table, though it should cost my life, I will show myself such as I ought to be.”
He then left the pulpit, and stood at the table. Removing the white cloth, and covering the bread and wine with his hands, he said, with a voice that rang through the building, “These hands you may crush; these arms you may lop off; my life you may take; my blood is yours, you may shed it but you shall never force me to give holy things to the profane, and dishonor the table of my God.” As if the very power of God prevailed, a calm succeeded, and the Libertines retired; the congregation opening a passage for their retreat. A solemn silence enabled the Reformer to celebrate the sacred ordinance in awe, as if the Lord Himself had been manifestly present.
The question in the mind of Calvin was not whether he or the Libertines should succeed; but whether the Reformation should be wrecked at the very table of the Lord. He stood firm; and victory remained with him."
The entire account can be found in 'The History of Protestantism' by James A. Wylie
Last edited:
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
I used to be where you are Davidius but the more I study the role of the Elder in the church I do not think it is enough for either the Teaching or Ruling Elder just to give a blanket "absolution" before the giving of the elements. I know for my own conscious-sake I cannot just rely on hope that visitors are professing Christians.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Calvin turning away the Libertines:
Davidius
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Exactly. I sure hope that anyone would refuse to commune the excommunicated.
Pergie,
Yeah, I guess I am mellowing out. The marriage probably has something to do with it.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
What were the Libertines after Pergs? They were after his guarding of the table.
Calvin did not need to personally interview them. That is why you have Sessions/Consistories.
I see you are speaking of visitors in your post above, but as I understand it the old practice of communion coins was for all church members and not merely visitors only.
We might agree more if you merely speak of visitors being interviewed.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
Well all members should be in good standing before taking the elements. The Elders will be interviewing members when they do there bi-quarterly visits with the members of the Church. Interviewing visitors and non-members would take place each Lord's Day, as I am a proponent of weekly communion. If for any reason something would come up between visits the Session would act accordingly. Your reasoning suggests the Session would be disengaged from the life of the congregation.
I am starting to agree with you more.
I am all for "session" interaction with the church body. A pastor and elder should constantly be meeting with its people. A formal quarterly meeting might be a little too formal for my taste, but its carefulness might be a good thing and show love towards souls instead of laxness.
I am against pre-Supper interviews for church members in good standing to gain a communion token to recieve a Lord's Supper that might ought to be administered weekly anyhow.
I am all for checking out your visitors. If they come from a church in good standing, detailed examination of essential doctrines would be hard to do without causing offense, eating time and becoming clumsy and ackward. If they say, "I come from Oak River PCA down my Mulberry Lane and we are visiting from out of town." and they profess Christ that seems enough. The rest is on them to examine themselves.
Thanks for the light you are shedding on this topic...
I am all for "session" interaction with the church body. A pastor and elder should constantly be meeting with its people. A formal quarterly meeting might be a little too formal for my taste, but its carefulness might be a good thing and show love towards souls instead of laxness.
I am against pre-Supper interviews for church members in good standing to gain a communion token to recieve a Lord's Supper that might ought to be administered weekly anyhow.
I am all for checking out your visitors. If they come from a church in good standing, detailed examination of essential doctrines would be hard to do without causing offense, eating time and becoming clumsy and ackward. If they say, "I come from Oak River PCA down my Mulberry Lane and we are visiting from out of town." and they profess Christ that seems enough. The rest is on them to examine themselves.
Thanks for the light you are shedding on this topic...
Christusregnat
Puritan Board Professor
Benjamin,
Christianity is a public religion, and does not merely consist in a man's private feelings and thoughts. Communion reflects this fact, as it is not to become a private religious or devotional exercise. In fact, NOTHING in the gatherings of the church is to be considered as a merely private devotional act.
The Corinthians turned the Lord's Table into a shambles when every man did self-communion, and neglected to wait for one another and to have deference to the public meetings rather than to their private exercises:
17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it... 20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
Paul then gives the words of institution, followed by:
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. 33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
Notice that Paul does not separate the private judgment from the public judgment; certainly their are private judgments in the passage, but Paul also warns about the whole church coming under judgment. Hence, WE must judge OURSELVES, lest WE are chastened by the Lord.
Communion IS NOT a private spiritual exercise; it is a public spiritual exercise of the body of Christ. Private preparation is necessary is necessary so as not to become the Achan who brings plagues on the whole camp, but the point Paul is making is that the Holy Supper is a public event, in which no man is to despise the body, but is to wait for others, and not cause God's judgment to fall on everyone.
In this light, I think that both sides are seeking to protect something very good. One side wants to protect the private man's duty to examine himself. The other side is recognizing the public nature of the sacrament, and the duty of the church (through her representatives) to judge "us" lest "we" be chastened by the Lord.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers,
Adam
Christianity is a public religion, and does not merely consist in a man's private feelings and thoughts. Communion reflects this fact, as it is not to become a private religious or devotional exercise. In fact, NOTHING in the gatherings of the church is to be considered as a merely private devotional act.
The Corinthians turned the Lord's Table into a shambles when every man did self-communion, and neglected to wait for one another and to have deference to the public meetings rather than to their private exercises:
17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it... 20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
Paul then gives the words of institution, followed by:
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. 33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
Notice that Paul does not separate the private judgment from the public judgment; certainly their are private judgments in the passage, but Paul also warns about the whole church coming under judgment. Hence, WE must judge OURSELVES, lest WE are chastened by the Lord.
Communion IS NOT a private spiritual exercise; it is a public spiritual exercise of the body of Christ. Private preparation is necessary is necessary so as not to become the Achan who brings plagues on the whole camp, but the point Paul is making is that the Holy Supper is a public event, in which no man is to despise the body, but is to wait for others, and not cause God's judgment to fall on everyone.
In this light, I think that both sides are seeking to protect something very good. One side wants to protect the private man's duty to examine himself. The other side is recognizing the public nature of the sacrament, and the duty of the church (through her representatives) to judge "us" lest "we" be chastened by the Lord.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers,
Adam
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
For those who are members in good standing in another true church a testimony should be fine. Twenty questions is neither helpful nor necessary in my mind in that situation.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
I find agreement with your statement. I am in favor of both private and public of course. That is what I have been defending.
The practice should not be completely up to the individual (else why even have membership) and the Session should have the ability to bar some from the Table (else why have discipline, which includes excommunication). (pace Pergy)
At the same time, the Table is the Lord's Table, and not the table of any particular church. I do not believe that a Session has the right to prohibit from partaking a member in good standing from a church recognized by the church/denomination as a true church (whether flawed or not). That is the logical conclusion of pre-interviewing all participants. I would kindly note that (to my knowledge) all such denominations that have that practice are minuscule in size, making it much easier to have such a policy.
The Table should be verbally fenced, and those prohibited from it whom have been judged unworthy. That was what Calvin was doing. He was not flinging himself so that the equivalent members from a distant OPC/PCA/SBC church could not partake. He was prohibiting those who were involved with his church, local, and flagrant in their sin would not partake. To bring Calvin's actions into this discussion is a red herring.
At the same time, the Table is the Lord's Table, and not the table of any particular church. I do not believe that a Session has the right to prohibit from partaking a member in good standing from a church recognized by the church/denomination as a true church (whether flawed or not). That is the logical conclusion of pre-interviewing all participants. I would kindly note that (to my knowledge) all such denominations that have that practice are minuscule in size, making it much easier to have such a policy.
The Table should be verbally fenced, and those prohibited from it whom have been judged unworthy. That was what Calvin was doing. He was not flinging himself so that the equivalent members from a distant OPC/PCA/SBC church could not partake. He was prohibiting those who were involved with his church, local, and flagrant in their sin would not partake. To bring Calvin's actions into this discussion is a red herring.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
Fred,
I do not know how having session-controlled communion that interviews visitors logically goes to the "logical conclusion" of barring the visible church from partaking in the Lord's Supper? The church I attend on Lord's Day evenings that interviewed me did not have a problem with my ARP membership. I also would not make arguments that bring in the size of a church/denomination as evidence against it.
I do not know how having session-controlled communion that interviews visitors logically goes to the "logical conclusion" of barring the visible church from partaking in the Lord's Supper? The church I attend on Lord's Day evenings that interviewed me did not have a problem with my ARP membership. I also would not make arguments that bring in the size of a church/denomination as evidence against it.
- Status
