# I Want to Set up a Serious Scenario on the Topic of Communion



## Kurt Steele (Mar 18, 2016)

There is a brother in a church. He gets caught up in huge deceptive lies in personal and business matters which unravels and he is exposed. He immediately confesses and repents and does everything he can to make things right. The elders do not believe (and rightfully so in the beginning) that his repentance is sincere. He does not push back and he is allowed into the worship service but is NOT allowed to take communion. He does this for 5-6 months and remains under submission and it seems that he is seeking God in repentance and doing all he can to restore relationships with whom he hurt including his wife who files for divorce (although no adultery was involved and endorsed by the reformed church???). In fact, nothing is even argued for reconciliation. They are both members.

My questions:

1. Should the man be banned from the Lord's Table by leadership or is this personal between him and the Lord?

2. How long should he be banned?

3. Is divorce sin and should the wife be held to the same standards because isn't divorce sin and God hates it?

4. When should communion be restored to the man?


----------



## Gforce9 (Mar 18, 2016)

Kurt Steele said:


> There is a brother in a church. He gets caught up in huge deceptive lies in personal and business matters which unravels and he is exposed. He immediately confesses and repents and does everything he can to make things right. The elders do not believe (and rightfully so in the beginning) that his repentance is sincere. He does not push back and he is allowed into the worship service but is NOT allowed to take communion. He does this for 5-6 months and remains under submission and it seems that he is seeking God in repentance and doing all he can to restore relationships with whom he hurt including his wife who files for divorce (although no adultery was involved and endorsed by the reformed church???). In fact, nothing is even argued for reconciliation. They are both members.
> 
> My questions:
> 
> ...



Kurt,
There just isn't enough information for people outside the situation to pass good judgment here. with that stated up front:

1-It is up to the session/elder board to decide. It is their _responsibility_ be involved and rule properly. There may be an ecclesiastical problem if the government isn't acting properly or isn't biblical...not enough info...
2-Again, up to the session.
3-Most situations aren't cut and dried...they are usually complex. The situation is further complicated when the laity hear of a matter and know little about it while the session is dealing with it...they tend to draw conclusions that may not be correct or charged with emotion...
4-Again, a matter for the officers of the church to decide. They should have way more info to govern wisely than we have here....

I think the bottom line is the session needs to engage and do their God-given duty and act righteously. If they are doing this, good for them and those under them. If they are not, that is another matter.


----------



## Edward (Mar 18, 2016)

Gforce9 said:


> Kurt,
> There just isn't enough information for people outside the situation to pass good judgment here. with that stated up front:
> 
> 1-It is up to the session/elder board to decide. It is their responsibility be involved and rule properly. There may be an ecclesiastical problem if the government isn't acting properly or isn't biblical...not enough info...
> ...



I fully agree with 1, 2, and 4. Three seems to make some of the assumptions carefully avoided in the other three answers. I'd omit the last sentence of 3 and say it is an issue for the session that should be determined based on information that should NOT be available to the congregation. 

---
In all cases, the goal of church discipline should be restoration, and not punishment. Indeed, it is heartening that an ECO church, a denomination about which many of us here would express reservations, appears to take church discipline seriously. Are they going to be perfect? Of course not. But from this distance, none of us should second guess them, and from a closer distance, one shoud second guess only on hard evidence, not speculation, rumor, or gossip.


----------



## Gforce9 (Mar 18, 2016)

Fair assessment, Edward...Corrected......


----------



## Kurt Steele (Mar 18, 2016)

Please take this the spirit in which I ask to learn...where in Scripture or church history for that matter do elders limit access to the Lord's table when a person is repentant and is not officially under church discipline with all the other ramifications, being put out from the church.

Doesn't Paul call for self examination at the Lord's table?

Want to learn...


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Mar 19, 2016)

Kurt Steele said:


> Please take this the spirit in which I ask to learn...where in Scripture or church history for that matter do elders limit access to the Lord's table when a person is repentant and is not officially under church discipline with all the other ramifications, being put out from the church.
> 
> Doesn't Paul call for self examination at the Lord's table?
> 
> Want to learn...



Greetings Kurt,

I see that you are in Incline Village! Well, I live in the Sparks area! Glad to see a fellow Nevadan.

First, I would start by looking at what the scriptures tell us concerning how serious it is to take the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner:



> 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. 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. 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*. 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. (Emphasis added; 1 Cor. 11)



Also, we should consider the Westminster Confession:



> VIII. Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament; yet, they receive not the thing signified thereby; but, by their unworthy coming thereunto, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Him, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table; and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto. (Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. 29)



There are two things that come to mind:

1) everyone who calls themselves a Christian are to prepare for the Lord's Supper. 

2) There is judgment for those who take it in an unworthy manner. I want to highlight the fact that the confession rightly points out that those who receive it in an unworthy manner are those "ignorant and wicked men" who come to the Lord's Table and are "guilty of the body and blood of the lord" to which they do so "to their own damnation". These are keywords which give clear examples of an unbelieving heart. If a man is divorcing his wife, we should note that even the confession gives the only biblical circumstances by which a divorce may take place. "VI. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God has joined together in marriage: yet, *nothing but adultery*, or such *wilful desertion* as can no way be remedied by the Church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage" (Westminster Confession of Faith, Ch. 24).


It should be of interest as well to look at the Westminster Larger Catechism and Fisher's Catechism:



> Q. 170. How do they that worthily communicate in the Lord’s supper feed upon the body and blood of Christ therein?
> 
> A. As the body and blood of Christ are not corporally or carnally present in, with, or under the bread and wine in the Lord’s supper,[1084] and yet are spiritually present to the faith of the receiver, no less truly and really than the elements themselves are to their outward senses;[1085] so they that worthily communicate in the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, do therein feed upon the body and blood of Christ, not after a corporal and carnal, but in a spiritual manner; yet truly and really,[1086] while by faith they receive and apply unto themselves Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death.[1087]
> 
> ...



And:



> Q. 21. What is the use of repentance in this sacrament?
> 
> A. Without repentance there can be no mourning for sin, which is an inseparable concomitant of faith's looking to, or improving a crucified Saviour in this ordinance, Zech. 12:10 -- "They shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him."
> 
> ...



Finally, Elders are to know their flock. They are to know who is in their care. The elders are responsible for those in their flock: "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, *as they that must give account*, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you" (Heb. 13:17). If the elders are not blocking the unworthy partakers, the elders will be held accountable for such acts. They will be held for not fencing the table.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Edward (Mar 19, 2016)

Kurt Steele said:


> do elders limit access to the Lord's table when a person is repentant and is not officially under church discipline



That doesn't really make sense. If the elders, sitting in session, bar him from the table, that's official. So I don't see how that can be parsed. And if the elders, sitting in session, bar him from the table, then that's church discipline. So I don't see how you can say one one hand they are barring him from the table, and on the other that he isn't under 'official church discipline'.


----------



## Kurt Steele (Mar 19, 2016)

You are right it does not make sense "parsing it". As I understand church discipline is for an unrepentant man and he/she is "put out of the church" till he shows the fruit of repentance. As I read the helpful posts which listed Westminster perspective. But this man is repentant and is allowed to come and worship in the church other than a long period without communion. Once again for my learning, what biblical and/or historical context can be given to take away the Lord's supper for many months? I can not find any and are not the Elders to lead with biblical perspective. The man is submitting to this "discipline" but I do not see the biblical basis for this when this man is showing the marks of a repentant person. Appreciate some more dialogue on this topic from all of you. I am learning so much.


----------

