# Session-Controlled Communion & 1st Corninthians 11



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Session-Controlled Communion & 1st Corninthians 11 « Backwoods Presbyterian


----------



## Pergamum

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.


----------



## A5pointer

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.


----------



## ADKing

Pergamum said:


> the responsibility seems to then be on the person partaking, not a man-made court.



Sessions are not "man-made courts". They are biblically ordained courts made up of officers whom Christ has given to the church.


----------



## Bygracealone

Pergamum said:


> 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.



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

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.


----------



## Galatians220

Pergamum said:


> I am glad that communion tokens have now only become a historical curiosity.


 
Oh, they're not a historical curiosity everywhere. I know of a church that still uses them... 

Margaret


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Galatians220 said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am glad that communion tokens have now only become a historical curiosity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, they're not a historical curiosity everywhere. I know of a church that still uses them...
> 
> Margaret
Click to expand...


And God Bless them for it Margaret.


----------



## Pergamum

ADKing said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> the responsibility seems to then be on the person partaking, not a man-made court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sessions are not "man-made courts". They are biblically ordained courts made up of officers whom Christ has given to the church.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Pergamum

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

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

Pergamum said:


> ADKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> the responsibility seems to then be on the person partaking, not a man-made court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sessions are not "man-made courts". They are biblically ordained courts made up of officers whom Christ has given to the church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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?


----------



## Pergamum

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.


----------



## Davidius

Brad said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ADKing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sessions are not "man-made courts". They are biblically ordained courts made up of officers whom Christ has given to the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Pergamum

Woohooo support from my Latin-lovin' friend. Marriage has mellowed you, huh?


----------



## Ginny Dohms

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


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Davidius said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

Calvin turning away the Libertines:


----------



## Pergamum

That is a clear case of needing to protect the table to have outsiders burst through your door and try to take control of your church. 

Did Calvin formally interview them first? 


I don't see this as having close relation to our present discussion.


----------



## Davidius

Pergamum said:


> That is a clear case of needing to protect the table to have outsiders burst through your door and try to take control of your church.
> 
> Did Calvin formally interview them first?
> 
> 
> I don't see this as having close relation to our present discussion.



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

Pergamum said:


> That is a clear case of needing to protect the table to have outsiders burst through your door and try to take control of your church.
> 
> Did Calvin formally interview them first?
> 
> 
> I don't see this as having close relation to our present discussion.



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.


----------



## Pergamum

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...



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

Pergamum said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Pergamum

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...


----------



## Christusregnat

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 on*e 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 said:


> Session-Controlled Communion & 1st Corninthians 11 « Backwoods Presbyterian


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Pergamum said:


> 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 receive 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 backward. 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...



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

Christusregnat said:


> 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 on*e 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 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Session-Controlled Communion & 1st Corninthians 11 « Backwoods Presbyterian
Click to expand...



I find agreement with your statement. I am in favor of both private and public of course. That is what I have been defending.


----------



## fredtgreco

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.


----------



## Pergamum

I think we are but a hair's breadth from agreement! Cool.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

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.


----------



## Pergamum

Thanks Pastor Fred, even though I don't know what _pace _is.



I am going to bed. God bless you guys.



p.s. do commmunion tokens fit in the arcade machines in the mall next to the church? Get communion AND play Donkey Kong...now THAT would be awesome!


----------



## fredtgreco

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> 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.



The point is that if there were even 25 visitors at a church service (a very real possibility in many churches, including mine) it would be a near impossibility to interview them all. If I understand you correctly, you were interviewed as a part of ongoing attendance. I am speaking of irregular visitors. To put the point - when I go to San Diego this weekend to perform a marriage ceremony, should the local OPC (or even PCA!) church be able to require me to show up sufficiently early to be interviewed by them? I am a member in good standing of my Presbytery, and they have absolutely no authority over me. They also have almost no ability to make a proper judgment. They do not know me (as my court does) and do not know even if I gave the right answers whether that was borne out in my life.


I would also say that it should to be permitted to bar anyone who had the proper credentials, and the history of closed communion is exactly that. Each Session does not get to determine which church/denomination is a true church or not. That is a matter for the higher courts (per Presbyterianism). Each Session also does not get to judge the "genuineness" of the profession of a member of another church. That is violative of the jurisdiction and authority of the visitor's Session.


----------



## fredtgreco

Pergamum said:


> Thanks Pastor Fred, even though I don't know what _pace _is.



It means "with all due respect to; with the permission of"


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

fredtgreco said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that if there were even 25 visitors at a church service (a very real possibility in many churches, including mine) it would be a near impossibility to interview them all. If I understand you correctly, you were interviewed as a part of ongoing attendance. I am speaking of irregular visitors. To put the point - when I go to San Diego this weekend to perform a marriage ceremony, should the local OPC (or even PCA!) church be able to require me to show up sufficiently early to be interviewed by them? I am a member in good standing of my Presbytery, and they have absolutely no authority over me. They also have almost no ability to make a proper judgment. They do not know me (as my court does) and do not know even if I gave the right answers whether that was borne out in my life.
> 
> I would also say that it should to be permitted to bar anyone who had the proper credentials, and the history of closed communion is exactly that. Each Session does not get to determine which church/denomination is a true church or not. That is a matter for the higher courts (per Presbyterianism). Each Session also does not get to judge the "genuineness" of the profession of a member of another church. That is violative of the jurisdiction and authority of the visitor's Session.
Click to expand...


Let me take them in order:

1) *Interviewing Visitors*

In this case the Session should do its due diligence to do what it can to interview all visitors, especially when you are in a situation like yours Rev. Greco. Always giving a guarding of the table talk before communion, because at that point it is up to the conscience of the individual. However not every possible scenario can be taken care of all the time. 

2) *Your example of going to San Diego*

If you know ahead of time you will be visiting an area and the congregation you are visiting practices session-controlled communion then it should be your responsibility to call/e-mail/send a letter to the Pastor/Clerk stating that you will be visiting with a short testimony and maybe a recommendation from your Session or Pastor. You are also inferring that those who practice session-controlled communion force their elders to make a decision on the heart of the individual and that is just not true. (Please feel free to correct me if I am misunderstanding you). 


3) *True Churches*

I still do not understand how you can say closed-communion logically infers the local session gets to decide the veracity of a denomination. I am not bothered by others hearing my testimony. How can that be invasive at all? One should be happy to share there testimony with any who would ask.


Also let me add that I believe we should submit ourselves as visitors to the authority of the local congregation.


----------



## fredtgreco

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that if there were even 25 visitors at a church service (a very real possibility in many churches, including mine) it would be a near impossibility to interview them all. If I understand you correctly, you were interviewed as a part of ongoing attendance. I am speaking of irregular visitors. To put the point - when I go to San Diego this weekend to perform a marriage ceremony, should the local OPC (or even PCA!) church be able to require me to show up sufficiently early to be interviewed by them? I am a member in good standing of my Presbytery, and they have absolutely no authority over me. They also have almost no ability to make a proper judgment. They do not know me (as my court does) and do not know even if I gave the right answers whether that was borne out in my life.
> 
> I would also say that it should to be permitted to bar anyone who had the proper credentials, and the history of closed communion is exactly that. Each Session does not get to determine which church/denomination is a true church or not. That is a matter for the higher courts (per Presbyterianism). Each Session also does not get to judge the "genuineness" of the profession of a member of another church. That is violative of the jurisdiction and authority of the visitor's Session.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me take them in order:
> 
> 1) *Interviewing Visitors*
> 
> In this case the Session should do its due diligence to do what it can to interview all visitors, especially when you are in a situation like yours Rev. Greco. Always giving a guarding of the table talk before communion, because at that point it is up to the conscience of the individual. However not every possible scenario can be taken care of all the time.
Click to expand...


That is correct, not every possible scenario can be taken care of all the time. But that does not permit a Session to keep a Christian who is _a member in good standing_ of another congregation from partaking. You place the burden on the individual to prove he is worthy, when he already has. That is but one of the reasons that we have church membership, and why we transfer members between churches, not require a new profession of faith. Closed communion denies this connectional raelity.




> 2) *Your example of going to San Diego*
> 
> If you know ahead of time you will be visiting an area and the congregation you are visiting practices session-controlled communion then it should be your responsibility to call/e-mail/send a letter to the Pastor/Clerk stating that you will be visiting with a short testimony and maybe a recommendation from your Session or Pastor. You are also inferring that those who practice session-controlled communion force their elders to make a decision on the heart of the individual and that is just not true. (Please feel free to correct me if I am misunderstanding you).



Again, you place all the burden on me. The Session is not in a place to judge my profession. It also, frankly, has no authority over me, and should not usurp the authority of my own judiciary. The only reason for doing so is to say that the Table belongs to the _particular church_, rather than the Lord, or the Church (capital C on purpose). What if I am not planning on staying but am providentially hindered? What if I do not know where I will attend? What if the church office is closed on Friday and Saturday? Why should I, as a member in good standing of a Presbytery which has ecclesiastical relations with said church, have to jump through such hoops? So that they can second guess my judiciary?




> 3) *True Churches*
> 
> I still do not understand how you can say closed-communion logically infers the local session gets to decide the veracity of a denomination. I am not bothered by others hearing my testimony. How can that be invasive at all? One should be happy to share there testimony with any who would ask.
> 
> 
> Also let me add that I believe we should submit ourselves as visitors to the authority of the local congregation.



To be frank, it matters not a whit whether you are bothered by giving your testimony. This is a principial issue, not one of feelings. Maybe a young women is shy; maybe the an elderly gentleman who has walked with Christ for 6 decades doesn't like being put on the spot. The issue is - whose Table is it? What does membership mean?

Closed communion is all but congregationalism.


----------



## Mushroom

> This is far from the free milk and cookies for all that you indict me of.


My beloved Pergamum, I very sincerely hope that you were not under the impression that I was accusing you of that. I know far better, and was honestly trying to determine where you thought the line should be drawn in fencing the table. My apologies if that was unclear. You and your family are very precious to me and mine, and I would hate the idea that I had offended you in unkindness.


----------



## sastark

fredtgreco said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that if there were even 25 visitors at a church service (a very real possibility in many churches, including mine) it would be a near impossibility to interview them all. If I understand you correctly, you were interviewed as a part of ongoing attendance. I am speaking of irregular visitors. To put the point - when I go to San Diego this weekend to perform a marriage ceremony, should the local OPC (or even PCA!) church be able to require me to show up sufficiently early to be interviewed by them? I am a member in good standing of my Presbytery, and they have absolutely no authority over me. They also have almost no ability to make a proper judgment. They do not know me (as my court does) and do not know even if I gave the right answers whether that was borne out in my life.
> 
> I would also say that it should to be permitted to bar anyone who had the proper credentials, and the history of closed communion is exactly that. Each Session does not get to determine which church/denomination is a true church or not. That is a matter for the higher courts (per Presbyterianism). Each Session also does not get to judge the "genuineness" of the profession of a member of another church. That is violative of the jurisdiction and authority of the visitor's Session.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me take them in order:
> 
> 1) *Interviewing Visitors*
> 
> In this case the Session should do its due diligence to do what it can to interview all visitors, especially when you are in a situation like yours Rev. Greco. Always giving a guarding of the table talk before communion, because at that point it is up to the conscience of the individual. However not every possible scenario can be taken care of all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is correct, not every possible scenario can be taken care of all the time. But that does not permit a Session to keep a Christian who is _a member in good standing_ of another congregation from partaking. You place the burden on the individual to prove he is worthy, when he already has. That is but one of the reasons that we have church membership, and why we transfer members between churches, not require a new profession of faith. Closed communion denies this connectional raelity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) *Your example of going to San Diego*
> 
> If you know ahead of time you will be visiting an area and the congregation you are visiting practices session-controlled communion then it should be your responsibility to call/e-mail/send a letter to the Pastor/Clerk stating that you will be visiting with a short testimony and maybe a recommendation from your Session or Pastor. You are also inferring that those who practice session-controlled communion force their elders to make a decision on the heart of the individual and that is just not true. (Please feel free to correct me if I am misunderstanding you).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you place all the burden on me. The Session is not in a place to judge my profession. It also, frankly, has no authority over me, and should not usurp the authority of my own judiciary. The only reason for doing so is to say that the Table belongs to the _particular church_, rather than the Lord, or the Church (capital C on purpose). What if I am not planning on staying but am providentially hindered? What if I do not know where I will attend? What if the church office is closed on Friday and Saturday? Why should I, as a member in good standing of a Presbytery which has ecclesiastical relations with said church, have to jump through such hoops? So that they can second guess my judiciary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3) *True Churches*
> 
> I still do not understand how you can say closed-communion logically infers the local session gets to decide the veracity of a denomination. I am not bothered by others hearing my testimony. How can that be invasive at all? One should be happy to share there testimony with any who would ask.
> 
> 
> Also let me add that I believe we should submit ourselves as visitors to the authority of the local congregation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be frank, it matters not a whit whether you are bothered by giving your testimony. This is a principial issue, not one of feelings. Maybe a young women is shy; maybe the an elderly gentleman who has walked with Christ for 6 decades doesn't like being put on the spot. The issue is - whose Table is it? What does membership mean?
> 
> Closed communion is all but congregationalism.
Click to expand...



This post is one of the best defenses against the ungodly practice of closed communion I have ever read. Simple and to the point.

Thank you for posting it, Pastor Greco!


----------



## KMK

sastark said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me take them in order:
> 
> 1) *Interviewing Visitors*
> 
> In this case the Session should do its due diligence to do what it can to interview all visitors, especially when you are in a situation like yours Rev. Greco. Always giving a guarding of the table talk before communion, because at that point it is up to the conscience of the individual. However not every possible scenario can be taken care of all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct, not every possible scenario can be taken care of all the time. But that does not permit a Session to keep a Christian who is _a member in good standing_ of another congregation from partaking. You place the burden on the individual to prove he is worthy, when he already has. That is but one of the reasons that we have church membership, and why we transfer members between churches, not require a new profession of faith. Closed communion denies this connectional raelity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you place all the burden on me. The Session is not in a place to judge my profession. It also, frankly, has no authority over me, and should not usurp the authority of my own judiciary. The only reason for doing so is to say that the Table belongs to the _particular church_, rather than the Lord, or the Church (capital C on purpose). What if I am not planning on staying but am providentially hindered? What if I do not know where I will attend? What if the church office is closed on Friday and Saturday? Why should I, as a member in good standing of a Presbytery which has ecclesiastical relations with said church, have to jump through such hoops? So that they can second guess my judiciary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3) *True Churches*
> 
> I still do not understand how you can say closed-communion logically infers the local session gets to decide the veracity of a denomination. I am not bothered by others hearing my testimony. How can that be invasive at all? One should be happy to share there testimony with any who would ask.
> 
> 
> Also let me add that I believe we should submit ourselves as visitors to the authority of the local congregation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be frank, it matters not a whit whether you are bothered by giving your testimony. This is a principial issue, not one of feelings. Maybe a young women is shy; maybe the an elderly gentleman who has walked with Christ for 6 decades doesn't like being put on the spot. The issue is - whose Table is it? What does membership mean?
> 
> Closed communion is all but congregationalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This post is one of the best defenses against the ungodly practice of closed communion I have ever read. Simple and to the point.
> 
> Thank you for posting it, Pastor Greco!
Click to expand...




Rev Greco, would you describe your view as 'close communion' or 'open communion' or something inbetween?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Restricted Communion - John Murray


----------



## a mere housewife

Communion is a means of grace. One result of over-fencing is encouraging spiritual weakness among those who feel that they have to be perfect in order to partake by encouraging such a mentality in them, and by making them jump through hoops they don't have confidence to jump through in order to come to Christ. We saw this in Mexico, where out of a church of quite a few baptized adults, only the missionary and his wife took communion. We found out that it was because of the stern warnings given and because the missionary -who was a fundamentalist- had imbibed into them a sense that they were unworthy in his eyes and that of God (I am sure he didn't in the least mean to do this: he was often frustrated that no one was taking communion). Ruben taught them that one must examine themselves, but the requirement was that one stand in need of grace, and see that grace supplied in Christ. He gave the proper fencing warnings also. Almost all the adults partook. We (and the missionaries when they returned) saw this reflected in spiritual growth and strength in the Christians there. I don't think we should have to hedge grace around in a way that discourages people who are worthy partakers and stand in need of grace from coming to Christ. Even in the case of fencing communion, the session will often approve those who they must later bar.


----------



## fredtgreco

KMK said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct, not every possible scenario can be taken care of all the time. But that does not permit a Session to keep a Christian who is _a member in good standing_ of another congregation from partaking. You place the burden on the individual to prove he is worthy, when he already has. That is but one of the reasons that we have church membership, and why we transfer members between churches, not require a new profession of faith. Closed communion denies this connectional raelity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you place all the burden on me. The Session is not in a place to judge my profession. It also, frankly, has no authority over me, and should not usurp the authority of my own judiciary. The only reason for doing so is to say that the Table belongs to the _particular church_, rather than the Lord, or the Church (capital C on purpose). What if I am not planning on staying but am providentially hindered? What if I do not know where I will attend? What if the church office is closed on Friday and Saturday? Why should I, as a member in good standing of a Presbytery which has ecclesiastical relations with said church, have to jump through such hoops? So that they can second guess my judiciary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be frank, it matters not a whit whether you are bothered by giving your testimony. This is a principial issue, not one of feelings. Maybe a young women is shy; maybe the an elderly gentleman who has walked with Christ for 6 decades doesn't like being put on the spot. The issue is - whose Table is it? What does membership mean?
> 
> Closed communion is all but congregationalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This post is one of the best defenses against the ungodly practice of closed communion I have ever read. Simple and to the point.
> 
> Thank you for posting it, Pastor Greco!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rev Greco, would you describe your view as 'close communion' or 'open communion' or something inbetween?
Click to expand...


My position (which is also that of the PCA and OPC) is "close" communion. The table is fenced, and requirements are laid down, but the Session does not have to examine each person communing.

I have seen John Murray's arguments before, and they did not impress me then. His position boils down to "we might possibly make a mistake, so we should be as conservative and restrictive as possible; and if someone worthy is barred, he should appreciate our being diligent and get over it."

If a person is a member in good standing of a true church - and it is recognized as such by the church communing - the Session of the communing church has no business second guessing the proper judiciary. It is a withholding of the means of grace and a denial of connectionalism.


----------



## a mere housewife

Rev. Greco, I was wondering how the recognition of membership in a valid church would function where one didn't know anything about the church, or where membership wasn't on paper. For instance in Mexico, there wasn't a membership role and baptised, faithful attenders were dealt with as members. (Ruben always warned against coming unbaptised, or under discipline of some other church, or without believing that Christ was the only God and Saviour; but there wasn't much more we could do to 'hedge' for visitors.) What do you think would be the best procedure in this kind of church -- in other words, can 'close' communion function only in a certain kind of society?


----------



## Pergamum

fredtgreco said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that if there were even 25 visitors at a church service (a very real possibility in many churches, including mine) it would be a near impossibility to interview them all. If I understand you correctly, you were interviewed as a part of ongoing attendance. I am speaking of irregular visitors. To put the point - when I go to San Diego this weekend to perform a marriage ceremony, should the local OPC (or even PCA!) church be able to require me to show up sufficiently early to be interviewed by them? I am a member in good standing of my Presbytery, and they have absolutely no authority over me. They also have almost no ability to make a proper judgment. They do not know me (as my court does) and do not know even if I gave the right answers whether that was borne out in my life.
> 
> I would also say that it should to be permitted to bar anyone who had the proper credentials, and the history of closed communion is exactly that. Each Session does not get to determine which church/denomination is a true church or not. That is a matter for the higher courts (per Presbyterianism). Each Session also does not get to judge the "genuineness" of the profession of a member of another church. That is violative of the jurisdiction and authority of the visitor's Session.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me take them in order:
> 
> 1) *Interviewing Visitors*
> 
> In this case the Session should do its due diligence to do what it can to interview all visitors, especially when you are in a situation like yours Rev. Greco. Always giving a guarding of the table talk before communion, because at that point it is up to the conscience of the individual. However not every possible scenario can be taken care of all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is correct, not every possible scenario can be taken care of all the time. But that does not permit a Session to keep a Christian who is _a member in good standing_ of another congregation from partaking. You place the burden on the individual to prove he is worthy, when he already has. That is but one of the reasons that we have church membership, and why we transfer members between churches, not require a new profession of faith. Closed communion denies this connectional raelity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) *Your example of going to San Diego*
> 
> If you know ahead of time you will be visiting an area and the congregation you are visiting practices session-controlled communion then it should be your responsibility to call/e-mail/send a letter to the Pastor/Clerk stating that you will be visiting with a short testimony and maybe a recommendation from your Session or Pastor. You are also inferring that those who practice session-controlled communion force their elders to make a decision on the heart of the individual and that is just not true. (Please feel free to correct me if I am misunderstanding you).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you place all the burden on me. The Session is not in a place to judge my profession. It also, frankly, has no authority over me, and should not usurp the authority of my own judiciary. The only reason for doing so is to say that the Table belongs to the _particular church_, rather than the Lord, or the Church (capital C on purpose). What if I am not planning on staying but am providentially hindered? What if I do not know where I will attend? What if the church office is closed on Friday and Saturday? Why should I, as a member in good standing of a Presbytery which has ecclesiastical relations with said church, have to jump through such hoops? So that they can second guess my judiciary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3) *True Churches*
> 
> I still do not understand how you can say closed-communion logically infers the local session gets to decide the veracity of a denomination. I am not bothered by others hearing my testimony. How can that be invasive at all? One should be happy to share there testimony with any who would ask.
> 
> 
> Also let me add that I believe we should submit ourselves as visitors to the authority of the local congregation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be frank, it matters not a whit whether you are bothered by giving your testimony. This is a principial issue, not one of feelings. Maybe a young women is shy; maybe the an elderly gentleman who has walked with Christ for 6 decades doesn't like being put on the spot. The issue is - whose Table is it? What does membership mean?
> 
> Closed communion is all but congregationalism.
Click to expand...




This is a very good thread and I am very glad for it.


I spoke at another church that WAS congregational and practiced closed communion and they reached just that conclusion, that only THEIR church members could partake of communion. I.e. only people who were members of that one particular reformed baptist church could partake.

I was asked to speak, I was given support for my overseas ministry, and yet when the juice (I know) and bread came by I was not permitted to partake.

I asked the pastor afterword if he really thought his church policy made sense and he admitted that he wished it were different but under his assumptions of both closed communion and congregationalism that this was the only way his church could fence the table.


----------



## KMK

Good morning, Pergie!


----------



## Robbie Schmidtberger

fredtgreco said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> My position (which is also that of the PCA and OPC) is "close" communion. The table is fenced, and requirements are laid down, but the Session does not have to examine each person communing.
> 
> I have seen John Murray's arguments before, and they did not impress me then. His position boils down to "we might possibly make a mistake, so we should be as conservative and restrictive as possible; and if someone worthy is barred, he should appreciate our being diligent and get over it."
> 
> If a person is a member in good standing of a true church - and it is recognized as such by the church communing - the Session of the communing church has no business second guessing the proper judiciary. It is a withholding of the means of grace and a denial of connectionalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well put. Communion should encourage Christian unity. Close, or even session controlled, practically puts an end to that. I have seen dear Christian brothers and sisters show up and barred from the table as they were PCA, OPC, or even reformed baptist at that time. I was even told by one particular session that was in the same presbytery as my own that I must be interviewed with them in order to partake. My heart was hurt and upset, for I believed they questioned my faith in Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

fredtgreco said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that if there were even 25 visitors at a church service (a very real possibility in many churches, including mine) it would be a near impossibility to interview them all. If I understand you correctly, you were interviewed as a part of ongoing attendance. I am speaking of irregular visitors. To put the point - when I go to San Diego this weekend to perform a marriage ceremony, should the local OPC (or even PCA!) church be able to require me to show up sufficiently early to be interviewed by them? I am a member in good standing of my Presbytery, and they have absolutely no authority over me. They also have almost no ability to make a proper judgment. They do not know me (as my court does) and do not know even if I gave the right answers whether that was borne out in my life.
> 
> I would also say that it should to be permitted to bar anyone who had the proper credentials, and the history of closed communion is exactly that. Each Session does not get to determine which church/denomination is a true church or not. That is a matter for the higher courts (per Presbyterianism). Each Session also does not get to judge the "genuineness" of the profession of a member of another church. That is violative of the jurisdiction and authority of the visitor's Session.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me take them in order:
> 
> 1) *Interviewing Visitors*
> 
> In this case the Session should do its due diligence to do what it can to interview all visitors, especially when you are in a situation like yours Rev. Greco. Always giving a guarding of the table talk before communion, because at that point it is up to the conscience of the individual. However not every possible scenario can be taken care of all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is correct, not every possible scenario can be taken care of all the time. But that does not permit a Session to keep a Christian who is _a member in good standing_ of another congregation from partaking. You place the burden on the individual to prove he is worthy, when he already has. That is but one of the reasons that we have church membership, and why we transfer members between churches, not require a new profession of faith. Closed communion denies this connectional raelity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) *Your example of going to San Diego*
> 
> If you know ahead of time you will be visiting an area and the congregation you are visiting practices session-controlled communion then it should be your responsibility to call/e-mail/send a letter to the Pastor/Clerk stating that you will be visiting with a short testimony and maybe a recommendation from your Session or Pastor. You are also inferring that those who practice session-controlled communion force their elders to make a decision on the heart of the individual and that is just not true. (Please feel free to correct me if I am misunderstanding you).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you place all the burden on me. The Session is not in a place to judge my profession. It also, frankly, has no authority over me, and should not usurp the authority of my own judiciary. The only reason for doing so is to say that the Table belongs to the _particular church_, rather than the Lord, or the Church (capital C on purpose). What if I am not planning on staying but am providentially hindered? What if I do not know where I will attend? What if the church office is closed on Friday and Saturday? Why should I, as a member in good standing of a Presbytery which has ecclesiastical relations with said church, have to jump through such hoops? So that they can second guess my judiciary?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3) *True Churches*
> 
> I still do not understand how you can say closed-communion logically infers the local session gets to decide the veracity of a denomination. I am not bothered by others hearing my testimony. How can that be invasive at all? One should be happy to share there testimony with any who would ask.
> 
> 
> Also let me add that I believe we should submit ourselves as visitors to the authority of the local congregation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be frank, it matters not a whit whether you are bothered by giving your testimony. This is a principial issue, not one of feelings. Maybe a young women is shy; maybe the an elderly gentleman who has walked with Christ for 6 decades doesn't like being put on the spot. The issue is - whose Table is it? What does membership mean?
> 
> Closed communion is all but congregationalism.
Click to expand...



1) The session of a church that has a session-controlled communion will not keep anyone from participating in communion who is willing to answer a yes or no question as to their status in the body of Christ. Simple as that. No one is saying they must answer twenty questions. Just answer whether or not they belong to a True Church and confess Jesus as their Savior and Lord. 

2) No Session is "judging" your profession just asking if you have a profession to make. Even churches that have an open communion need to be able to protect the visitors in the house from doing damage to their body. That is all that is going on in session-controlled communion. The session is watching out for its own house. If I come to visit Houston and I know that I'll be in your neighborhood then I would contact the church before attending. How hard would that be? Seriously? How big of a hoop is that? I personally was glad that I was asked to profess Christ to fellow brothers. I did not feel they were "usurping" the authority of Fairmount ARP. 


3) Session Controlled-Communion is not anything close to Congregationalism. I think our Presbyterian forefathers would take great offense to that connection. Also if I was a congregationalist I would nearly take offense to that as if there is something inherently wrong with Congregationalism to link it with what have some have called an "ungodly practice".


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> Restricted Communion - John Murray



Bingo. Thanks for that Andrew.


----------



## fredtgreco

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> 1) The session of a church that has a session-controlled communion will not keep anyone from participating in communion who is willing to answer a yes or no question as to their status in the body of Christ. Simple as that. No one is saying they must answer twenty questions. Just answer whether or not they belong to a True Church and confess Jesus as their Savior and Lord.



Obviously your experience with "closed" communion is severely limited. Sessions tend to interview visitors close to the level of a membership interview. If it is a "simple yes or no" question, why even bother? What is being accomplished? Seriously. How is it any different to simply verbally fence the table by reminding all of the requirements? Is saying "yes" so much more significant than "showing" yes by taking? That is worth having every visitor (which again, can be a significant process - if 20-30 visitors are present, as is the case in our congregation of about 160) call, come beforehand and sit in front of a group of strangers who know absolutely nothing (or nearly nothing, as the case may be) about them? What exactly is being accomplished here? Is the purity of table more purely kept? Are the warnings more dire? No. What is accomplished is fiefdoms.

If it is more than yes/no (which it should be, if one would practice true closed communion) then your argument falls of its own weight.



> 2) No Session is "judging" your profession just asking if you have a profession to make. Even churches that have an open communion need to be able to protect the visitors in the house from doing damage to their body. That is all that is going on in session-controlled communion. The session is watching out for its own house. If I come to visit Houston and I know that I'll be in your neighborhood then I would contact the church before attending. How hard would that be? Seriously? How big of a hoop is that? I personally was glad that I was asked to profess Christ to fellow brothers. I did not feel they were "usurping" the authority of Fairmount ARP.



There is EXACTLY judgment going on here. The reason we bar someone from the table is because we cannot vouch for their profession of faith (i.e that they are a Christian). If there is no judgment going on, then the exercise is a foolish waste of time. It is clearly a usurpation. You only think it not because you "feel" that it is not a "big deal" (hardly sharp ecclesiastical theology) and *frankly* because you were admitted. What if they denied you? What if they denied you because you were a baptist? A non-Psalm singer? Not dressed reverently enough? Denial for any reason, even if they just were not "sure" about your profession is a tantamount profession that the court that admitted you to membership made the wrong decision. As far as they are concerned, you aren't to be admitted to the Table, and your Session thought otherwise.



> 3) Session Controlled-Communion is not anything close to Congregationalism. I think our Presbyterian forefathers would take great offense to that connection. Also if I was a congregationalist I would nearly take offense to that as if there is something inherently wrong with Congregationalism to link it with what have some have called an "ungodly practice".



It is absolutely congregationalism. It is saying that a congregation and its Session do not need to abide by the decisions of a sister court. Note that closed communion is exactly that - closed to ALL except those who are members of a particular congregation, and those that the Session chooses to admit. There is no requirement that they admit others. Think through the consequences of these actions.

There is a reason that this practice has been all but abandoned in the visible church. Just because the Puritans did something does not make it the best course (love them though I do). Are you prepared to go to annual communion? Most of the churches that practiced closed communion and tokens did that as well.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

An article worth reading:



> Restricted Communion in One OPC Congregation
> William Shishko
> 
> Extracted from Ordained Servant vol. 3, no. 4 (October 1994)
> 
> “...or be admitted thereunto."
> 
> So ends the Westminster Confession of Faith’s chapter on the Lord’s Supper (XXIX). The Westminster Standards do not teach that people admit themselves to the Lord’s Supper, but that they are to “be admitted” to it. “All ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with (the Lord), 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.” (section VIII, emphasis mine). We demonstrate our allegiance to this confessional standard by not admitting covenant children or new Christians to the Lord’s Table until they have publicly professed their faith in Christ, c.f. OPC Directory for Worship, V:4. We also apply this standard by the step of church discipline known as “suspension,” cf. OPC Book of Discipline, VI:B:3.
> 
> But how do we apply the confessional standard “...be admitted thereunto” with respect to visitors at a service when the Lord’s Supper is being observed as part of our worship? A warning is read, c.f. OPC Directory for Worship, IV:C:2, and the elements are distributed indiscriminately by Session members across the pews, etc. The decision is left to the visitors (adults and children) as to whether or not they may partake of the elements. They “admit themselves thereunto.” Over against the old Scottish tradition which took the confessional standard so seriously that “communion tokens” were issued to those who were permitted to come to the Lord’s Supper, the hallowed American tradition is that “it’s left up to the individual.” Which tradition is closer to the pattern of both the Scriptures and the Reformed confessions?
> 
> Over a decade ago the Session of the OPC, Franklin Square considered this question, and came to the conclusion that what is commonly called “restricted communion” was decidedly more in line with the standard implied in the Westminster Confession of Faith, and Larger Catechism #173. We were struck with the fact that our church visitors were treated with a different standard than our own covenant children, who often knew more about the Gospel than many visitors! We were also convicted that the traditional American practice of “letting people make the decision for themselves” eviscerated any upholding of the discipline of other churches (a situation we would periodically face). From that time we have applied our conviction with this practice:
> 
> 1. The week prior to the Lord’s Supper (which is observed monthly) we announce in the church bulletin that: “The Lord’s Supper will be administered next week as part of our morning worship service. The Lord’s Supper is for those who have been baptized in the Name of the Triune God, have publicly professed their faith in Christ, and are members of an evangelical church. Those visiting with us who desire to partake of the Lord’s Supper should speak with one of the church elders before doing so.” A similar announcement is placed in the bulletin on the Sunday of the Lord’s Supper.
> 
> 2. Regular visitors (who have not already done so) speak with one of the elders either during the week prior to the Supper, or on that Sunday morning. We try to have one or more elders available near the entrance of the church so that visitors may consult with an elder. In most cases we know enough about the churches people come from so that individual elders may represent the Session by either giving permission to visitors to partake of the Lord’s Supper with us, or asking that they refrain from partaking with us “this time.” We see even the denial of permission to partake of the Lord’s Supper as an opportunity for ministry.
> 
> 3. The standard warning is given prior to the administering of the Lord’s Supper, along with a statement such as this: “In order to preserve the integrity of our oversight of the Lord’s Table, if any of you visiting with us have not spoken with one of the church elders regarding your participation in the Lord’s Supper, we would ask that you refrain from partaking today.”
> 
> 4. During the actual distribution of the elements the session members withhold the respective plates from those who have not spoken with of the session members.
> 
> I hasten to point out that this system is not “foolproof.” We frequently have many visitors, and it is difficult to enforce this as we would like. This difficulty is compounded by the fact that people do not actually come up to the communion table to be served, and also because the plates with the elements must, of necessity, be passed down entire pews from person to person. It would be far better if the elders gave the elements personally to each person “admitted” to the Lord’s Supper...but that’s hard to do in a congregation of over 200 people seated in pews!!! It’s also sometimes difficult to discern whether the congregation the visitor is from is genuinely “evangelical.” The term itself is becoming meaningless in our day. But, as with every other area of church discipline, we keep on working to be faithful to the standard of the Word of God. Our view has been to give a judgment of charity and admit persons who profess to be members of churches that are in some way conformed to a biblical pattern of doctrine and life.
> 
> What are the responses to this practice? Some take umbrage and (in true New York fashion!) let the elders know it. Others are more or less bothered by it, or are simply unfamiliar with it, and submit (the OPC is different than other evangelical churches in a number of ways, isn’t it?). Still others will say that even if they didn’t fully understand why we do things this way, they appreciated the care we had to preserve the integrity of the Lord’s Table. I’d like to think that’s the response that is the most genuinely sensitive to the administration of holy things in an unholy world.
> 
> How does your Session grapple with the phrase “...or be admitted thereunto”? Ponder the question and honestly ask yourself if the American evangelical pattern most of us are familiar with really squares with our confessional standard and the historic practice of the Reformed churches. For further reading on the question, see Professor John Murray’s thought provoking little article entitled “Restricted Communion” in his Collected Writings (Banner of Truth), 2:381-384.
> 
> *Rev. Shishko is pastor of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church of Franklin Square, New York.
> *


----------



## Pergamum

The very practice then of passing the plate instead of the elders individually giving the elements to individual peoples seems practically to contradict the other points of extreme care in the administration of the elements in the article above.

Also, if they announce: “In order to preserve the integrity of our oversight of the Lord’s Table, if any of you visiting with us have not spoken with one of the church elders regarding your participation in the Lord’s Supper, we would ask that you refrain from partaking today.” But then if they give you no period of time to go talk to an elder (i.e. they announce this once the service has begin and there is no pause) then a person has to sit there and not partake because they "missed their chance" to do something they didn't know they were supposed to do. 

If we ARE to partake of the Supper and are not to refrain from doing so, it would almost appear that it would then be better to stop the service (though impolite) and say, "WAIT, I didn't get my interview..." than to sit passively by and miss out on something the Lord wants us to partake of due to bad organization of how the procedure is done.


----------



## fredtgreco

Pergamum said:


> The very practice then of passing the plate instead of the elders individually giving the elements to individual peoples seems practically to contradict the other points of extreme care in the administration of the elements in the article above.
> 
> Also, if they announce: “In order to preserve the integrity of our oversight of the Lord’s Table, if any of you visiting with us have not spoken with one of the church elders regarding your participation in the Lord’s Supper, we would ask that you refrain from partaking today.” But then if they give you no period of time to go talk to an elder (i.e. they announce this once the service has begin and there is no pause) then a person has to sit there and not partake because they "missed their chance" to do something they didn't know they were supposed to do.
> 
> If we ARE to partake of the Supper and are not to refrain from doing so, it would almost appear that it would then be better to stop the service (though impolite) and say, "WAIT, I didn't get my interview..." than to sit passively by and miss out on something the Lord wants us to partake of due to bad organization of how the procedure is done.



Exactly. So if a well known OPC minister (for example) shows up, and does not know about the practice, he is barred from the Table. So much for connectionalism.

It doesn't do much good to read about it (and hope you comprehend _exactly _what that means) after the service has started, or once communion has started.


----------



## Pergamum

Stop the service!!!!!!!!!!! .......i want to partaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaake! Someone pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease interview me!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## fredtgreco

Pergamum said:


> Stop the service!!!!!!!!!!! .......i want to partaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaake! Someone pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease interview me!!!!!!!!!!!



I wonder what a Session would do in that circumstance? I mean not the yelling, but if someone stood and addressed the minister just before the elements were passed?


And I wonder what would happen if after that, 35 other people stood up?


----------



## Scott1

> fredtgreco
> PCA Pastor
> 
> 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.



Can you give guidance regarding these situations?

1) If I bring a guest with me to church who does not profess to be a Christian, my understanding is I should graciously explain to them that communion is for those who are Christians, correct? 

2) If I bring a guest with me who identifies themselves a Roman Catholic, who believes they are saved and who I know well enough to have reason to believe they are saved, how should I advise them?

3) Would it be any different if they believed they were saved but I had reason to believe they were *not* saved?

Or is it best to only rely on the verbal instructions of the Pastor (i.e. the Table is for those who are members in good standing of a church where this Gospel is preached...)

Gratefully.


----------



## fredtgreco

Scott1 said:


> fredtgreco
> PCA Pastor
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give guidance regarding these situations?
> 
> 1) If I bring a guest with me to church who does not profess to be a Christian, my understanding is I should graciously explain to them that communion is for those who are Christians, correct?
> 
> 2) If I bring a guest with me who identifies themselves a Roman Catholic, who believes they are saved and who I know well enough to have reason to believe they are saved, how should I advise them?
> 
> 3) Would it be any different if they believed they were saved but I had reason to believe they were *not* saved?
> 
> Or is it best to only rely on the verbal instructions of the Pastor (i.e. the Table is for those who are members in good standing of a church where this Gospel is preached...)
> 
> Gratefully.
Click to expand...


I think this is where the verbal instructions of the pastor are most helpful. I would address both of these situations in my fencing explanation, which usually takes about 5 minutes.

Our practice is "close" communion, not "open" (anyone can take if they think they should) or "closed" (only members of the congregation and interviewed guests). It is clear from the fencing (and BCO 57) that you must be a Christian and a member in good standing of an evangelical (I usually say Bible believing, Christ preaching) church.


----------



## Reepicheep

Have I mentioned I went to High School with Fred Greco?


----------



## Mushroom

Reepicheep said:


> Have I mentioned I went to High School with Fred Greco?



Its OK, Tony, we won't hold you guilty by association.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

> *WLC Q. 173. May any who profess the faith, and desire to come to the Lord’s supper, be kept from it?*
> 
> A. Such as are found to be ignorant or scandalous, notwithstanding their profession of the faith, and desire to come to the Lord’s supper, may and ought to be kept from that sacrament, by the power which Christ hath left in his church, until they receive instruction, and manifest their reformation.




From J.G. Vos Commentary on the Larger Catechism:



> *2.) Is the church to decide what persons are converted, and have saving faith in Christ?* -- Certainly not.
> 
> "...Church Officers and church courts cannot see people's hearts and they have no business to pronounce judgment on whether people are, or are not, truly saved Christians."





> *5.) What is the position of the catechism concerning the question of open, close (often called "closed"), or restricted communion?*
> 
> ...This question, in the form in which it exists today, is not directly answered by the catechism, or any of the Westminster Standards, because the problems created by denominationalism were not in then in view...Therefore the Westminster Assembly, while stating that the ignorant or scandalous are not to be admitted to the Lord's Supper, did not take up the question of whether members of one denomination should be admitted to the sacrament in congregations of another denomination.
> 
> However, the statements of the catechism do have some relation to the question of open, close, or restricted communion.
> 
> Open communion means that all persons who wish to come are admitted to the Lord's Supper. (The invitation is usually to "all members of evangelical churches" or "all who are of the Lord," etc., but all who wish to partake are admitted without any investigation of their faith or life.)
> 
> Restricted communion means that members of other denominations may be admitted to the Lord's Supper after they have met with the officers of the congregation and have satisfied them concerning faith and life.
> 
> Close communion means that only members of the denomination that is administering the sacrament, or of closely allied denominations officially recognized as of virtually identical faith, are admitted to the Lord's Supper...
> 
> *It should be said at once that the catechism is clearly opposed to open communion* [as Vos has defined it here].


----------



## Scott1

> fredtgreco
> PCA Pastor
> Obviously your experience with "closed" communion is severely limited. Sessions tend to interview visitors close to the level of a membership interview. If it is a "simple yes or no" question, why even bother? What is being accomplished? Seriously. How is it any different to simply verbally fence the table by reminding all of the requirements? Is saying "yes" so much more significant than "showing" yes by taking? That is worth having every visitor (which again, can be a significant process - if 20-30 visitors are present, as is the case in our congregation of about 160) call, come beforehand and sit in front of a group of strangers who know absolutely nothing (or nearly nothing, as the case may be) about them? What exactly is being accomplished here? Is the purity of table more purely kept? Are the warnings more dire? No.



This is an area I am growing in. I am becoming more aware of the need to approach the sacraments with care and of their spiritual nature. There is something of a mystery in them and sense we all need to be very careful. Scripture tells us: 

I Corinthians 11:28-30
"But let a man examine himself and so let him eat of _that_ bread, and drink of _that _cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eatheth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many _are_ weak and sickly among you, and many sleep."

It seems the "close" approach is near God's will revealed here-a clear charge is made by the church officer to believers, non-believers and believers in major unrepented sin, explaining the benefits for strengthening our faith and the consequences for unworthy partaking. The charge is for each man to examine himself, guided by clear exposition of God's word regarding the sacrament.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I'd like to hear some more thoughts on this if the PB would be interested.


----------



## Blue Tick

> My position (which is also that of the PCA and OPC) is "close" communion. The table is fenced, and requirements are laid down, but the Session does not have to examine each person communing.
> 
> I have seen John Murray's arguments before, and they did not impress me then. His position boils down to "we might possibly make a mistake, so we should be as conservative and restrictive as possible; and if someone worthy is barred, he should appreciate our being diligent and get over it."
> 
> If a person is a member in good standing of a true church - and it is recognized as such by the church communing - the Session of the communing church has no business second guessing the proper judiciary. It is a withholding of the means of grace and a denial of connectionalism.



Question that I have regarding "long term visitors" is what should a session do if a church has people who not members of any church but are visiting your church for months if not years without making a formal profession of faith before the session. For instance the Smiths are not members of any church but are consistent visitors each week for the last 2-3 years. They've been approached about membership, have denied it, but partake of the Lord's Supper monthly.

Thoughts....


----------



## raekwon

Blue Tick said:


> My position (which is also that of the PCA and OPC) is "close" communion. The table is fenced, and requirements are laid down, but the Session does not have to examine each person communing.
> 
> I have seen John Murray's arguments before, and they did not impress me then. His position boils down to "we might possibly make a mistake, so we should be as conservative and restrictive as possible; and if someone worthy is barred, he should appreciate our being diligent and get over it."
> 
> If a person is a member in good standing of a true church - and it is recognized as such by the church communing - the Session of the communing church has no business second guessing the proper judiciary. It is a withholding of the means of grace and a denial of connectionalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question that I have regarding "long term visitors" is what should a session do if a church has people who not members of any church but are visiting your church for months if not years without making a formal profession of faith before the session. For instance the Smiths are not members of any church but are consistent visitors each week for the last 2-3 years. They've been approached about membership, have denied it, but partake of the Lord's Supper monthly.
> 
> Thoughts....
Click to expand...


Looks like it's time for the Smiths to be told by the Session (lovingly) to either fish or cut bait.


----------



## Pergamum

raekwon said:


> Blue Tick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My position (which is also that of the PCA and OPC) is "close" communion. The table is fenced, and requirements are laid down, but the Session does not have to examine each person communing.
> 
> I have seen John Murray's arguments before, and they did not impress me then. His position boils down to "we might possibly make a mistake, so we should be as conservative and restrictive as possible; and if someone worthy is barred, he should appreciate our being diligent and get over it."
> 
> If a person is a member in good standing of a true church - and it is recognized as such by the church communing - the Session of the communing church has no business second guessing the proper judiciary. It is a withholding of the means of grace and a denial of connectionalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question that I have regarding "long term visitors" is what should a session do if a church has people who not members of any church but are visiting your church for months if not years without making a formal profession of faith before the session. For instance the Smiths are not members of any church but are consistent visitors each week for the last 2-3 years. They've been approached about membership, have denied it, but partake of the Lord's Supper monthly.
> 
> Thoughts....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looks like it's time for the Smiths to be told by the Session (lovingly) to either fish or cut bait.
Click to expand...


BUT...

Perhaps the Smiths don't believe in church membership. Surely this is not enough to deny them communion is it? The church that would do this could be charged with being manipulative. 

Also, how long is long enough then to receive a visitor before pushing them into a decision?

What would be the right thing to do in this case, I am curious....


----------



## Blue Tick

> Looks like it's time for the Smiths to be told by the Session (lovingly) to either fish or cut bait.



Rae, can you elaborate a little more on this? Do you mean that if the "Smiths" deny membership they should be pressed into membership and or should be refused the Lord's Supper. What I'm trying to understand should a session actively refuse the Lord's Supper to folks who for all intents and purposes are not a member in any church but are long term visitors to the local body. Long term I mean that they are professing Christians by consistent fellowship on the Lord's day and display fruits of believing. However, there is no formal submission to the local session and no formal acknowledgement of belief before the session.


----------



## Blue Tick

> BUT...
> 
> Perhaps the Smiths don't believe in church membership. Surely this is not enough to deny them communion is it? The church that would do this could be charged with being manipulative.
> 
> Also, how long is long enough then to receive a visitor before pushing them into a decision?
> 
> What would be the right thing to do in this case, I am curious....



Perg, 

These are good questions.


----------



## raekwon

Pergamum said:


> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blue Tick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question that I have regarding "long term visitors" is what should a session do if a church has people who not members of any church but are visiting your church for months if not years without making a formal profession of faith before the session. For instance the Smiths are not members of any church but are consistent visitors each week for the last 2-3 years. They've been approached about membership, have denied it, but partake of the Lord's Supper monthly.
> 
> Thoughts....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like it's time for the Smiths to be told by the Session (lovingly) to either fish or cut bait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BUT...
> 
> Perhaps the Smiths don't believe in church membership. Surely this is not enough to deny them communion is it? The church that would do this could be charged with being manipulative.
Click to expand...


No, I wouldn't necessarily that's enough to deny someone communion, but I do have a real problem with people saying that they don't "believe in church membership" in the face of overwhelming evidence that even the early church had _some sort_ of mechanism for knowing who was and was not among their ranks. Membership is just our way of doing that. Every time I've spoken to someone who "doesn't believe in membership", it's because they've been burned by a church in the past and don't want to deal with that responsibility again. (Much like someone who, after a messy divorce, dates and sleeps around, even shacks up, but refuses to marry again.) Folks like that need to be lovingly given a hearing as to their past hurts from other churches, counseled as to their error regarding membership, and encouraged to join. If they still refuse, I'm not saying that they should be denied communion necessarily, but they should understand that they're part of a church that DOES believe in membership, and that there are some privileges that they just won't get without it (such as leadership, voting, etc).



> Also, how long is long enough then to receive a visitor before pushing them into a decision?



Seems to me that it's not a function of time only, but of involvement. For instance, take two families who've been consistently attending a church for the exact same amount of time. One only shows up on Sundays and hasn't formed many relationships with folks in the church. The other has become involved in a number of the church's ministries, has friendships out the wazoo, etc. I'd say that both families should be approached about membership eventually, but I'd make the latter a priority. They're already functioning as members for all intents and purposes, anyway.



Blue Tick said:


> Looks like it's time for the Smiths to be told by the Session (lovingly) to either fish or cut bait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rae, can you elaborate a little more on this? Do you mean that if the "Smiths" deny membership they should be pressed into membership and or should be refused the Lord's Supper. What I'm trying to understand should a session actively refuse the Lord's Supper to folks who for all intents and purposes are not a member in any church but are long term visitors to the local body. Long term I mean that they are professing Christians by consistent fellowship on the Lord's day and display fruits of believing. However, there is no formal submission to the local session and no formal acknowledgement of belief before the session.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I answered the question thinking about membership in general, not about how it related to the Lord's Supper.


----------



## Blue Tick

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> *WLC Q. 173. May any who profess the faith, and desire to come to the Lord’s supper, be kept from it?*
> 
> A. Such as are found to be ignorant or scandalous, notwithstanding their profession of the faith, and desire to come to the Lord’s supper, may and ought to be kept from that sacrament, by the power which Christ hath left in his church, until they receive instruction, and manifest their reformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From J.G. Vos Commentary on the Larger Catechism:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2.) Is the church to decide what persons are converted, and have saving faith in Christ?* -- Certainly not.
> 
> "...Church Officers and church courts cannot see people's hearts and they have no business to pronounce judgment on whether people are, or are not, truly saved Christians."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *5.) What is the position of the catechism concerning the question of open, close (often called "closed"), or restricted communion?*
> 
> ...This question, in the form in which it exists today, is not directly answered by the catechism, or any of the Westminster Standards, because the problems created by denominationalism were not in then in view...Therefore the Westminster Assembly, while stating that the ignorant or scandalous are not to be admitted to the Lord's Supper, did not take up the question of whether members of one denomination should be admitted to the sacrament in congregations of another denomination.
> 
> However, the statements of the catechism do have some relation to the question of open, close, or restricted communion.
> 
> Open communion means that all persons who wish to come are admitted to the Lord's Supper. (The invitation is usually to "all members of evangelical churches" or "all who are of the Lord," etc., but all who wish to partake are admitted without any investigation of their faith or life.)
> 
> Restricted communion means that members of other denominations may be admitted to the Lord's Supper after they have met with the officers of the congregation and have satisfied them concerning faith and life.
> 
> Close communion means that only members of the denomination that is administering the sacrament, or of closely allied denominations officially recognized as of virtually identical faith, are admitted to the Lord's Supper...
> 
> *It should be said at once that the catechism is clearly opposed to open communion* [as Vos has defined it here].
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


This is well stated. 
How do we reconcile the LC when it states the following?



> Q. 169. How hath Christ appointed bread and wine to be given and received in the sacrament of the Lord's supper?
> 
> A. Christ hath appointed the ministers of his word, in the administration of this sacrament of the Lord's supper, *to set apart the bread and wine from common use, by the word of institution, thanksgiving, and prayer; to take and break the bread, and to give both the bread and the wine to the communicants: *who are, by the same appointment, to take and eat the bread, and to drink the wine, in thankful remembrance that the body of Christ was broken and given, and his blood shed, for them.
> 
> Q. 173. May any who profess the faith, and desire to come to the Lord's supper, be kept from it?
> 
> A. Such as are found to be *ignorant* or *scandalous*, notwithstanding their profession of the faith, and desire to come to the Lord's supper, may and ought to be kept from that sacrament, *by the power which Christ hath left in his church*, *until they receive instruction, and manifest their
> reformation.*



Is it unreasonable for the session to gently inquire as to the spiritual well being of those who are visitors? It seems that this is in accordance with the LC and 1 Peter 5:1-5

The responsibility is on the elders to exercise oversight of the flock. With the topic at hand that were discussing it seems appropriate that the session is to make sure that the Lord's Table is not being profaned by the ignorant or scandalous. 
*1 Peter 5:1-5*


> 5:1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, *exercising oversight, *not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. 5 Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”



Therefore, the elders are to be active in governing of the church maintaining the peace, purity, and holiness of the church.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Blue Tick said:


> *Is it unreasonable for the session to gently inquire as to the spiritual well being of those who are visitors?* It seems that this is in accordance with the LC and 1 Peter 5:1-5...



I do not think so...


----------



## Blue Tick

This is from the Oceanside United Reformed Church in Oceanside California. 



> Visitors & Holy Communion
> Holy Communion is meant to unite us to Jesus Christ as well as each other. Since it is a visible expression of our unity, the apostle Paul says, “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:17). For this reason, the elders of the church have the responsibility to oversee those who partake; therefore we welcome . . .
> —Communicant members-in-good-standing of congregations in the United Reformed Churches in North America.
> —Communicant members-in-good-standing of congregations with whom the United Reformed Churches have ecclesiastical relations as members of the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council—Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Canadian Reformed Churches, Free Reformed Churches, Heritage Reformed Congregations, Korean American Presbyterian Church, Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Presbyterian Church in America, Presbyterian Reformed Church Reformed Church in the United States, Reformed Church of Quebec, and Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America.
> —Those who are not members of one of the above, but who:
> 1. Believe in Jesus Christ alone for their salvation.
> 2. Have been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
> 3. Are communicant members, not presently under church discipline, of a confessional Reformed or Presbyterian congregation.
> If this does not describe you or if you do not understand what we mean by this, please abstain this morning. Since we desire to welcome you at the Table to receive Christ and his benefits, we invite you to speak with a Pastor and elder after worship and even to schedule a time this week when we can meet to discuss your relationship with Christ and/or his Church. Please understand that if you do not meet these requirements, we are not saying that there are Christians only in Reformed churches. Rather, this policy helps us to be reasonably assured that you are a like-minded believer by belonging to a church that shares a common confession of the Christian faith with us.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Pergamum said:


> 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.



Perg,

How do you define "church"?


----------



## Craig

Blue Tick said:


> Question that I have regarding "long term visitors" is what should a session do if a church has people who not members of any church but are visiting your church for months if not years without making a formal profession of faith before the session. For instance the Smiths are not members of any church but are consistent visitors each week for the last 2-3 years. They've been approached about membership, have denied it, but partake of the Lord's Supper monthly.
> 
> Thoughts....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our elders consider it rebellion if someone *purposefully* is not a member of any church. The pastors are clear when fencing the table: The normal admonition is given, but people who are purposefully not members of any church are asked to abstain from the sacrament as they refuse to be identified with God's people and be under the discipline of the Church.
Click to expand...


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Blue Tick said:


> BUT...
> 
> Perhaps the Smiths don't believe in church membership. Surely this is not enough to deny them communion is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely it is. If someone is not in communion with a true church as defined by Belgic Art 29 then they are arguably outside the church. If someone is not in communion with any congregation, why on earth would they expect to come to the Lord's Table in a Reformed congregation?
> 
> Where on earth did we get the idea, apart from radical American individualism and egalitarianism, that private persons are the ultimate judge of whether they ought to be allowed to commune at the Lord's Table? Can people just walk in an baptize themselves? Can people just walk in and start preaching because they want to? Of course not! Well, maybe in Muenster or Zwickau but not in Geneva or Heidelberg.
> 
> Our Lord commissioned the administration of the supper to the visible, institutional church not to every private person.
> 
> The real question here is whether Christ instituted the visible church, whether it has ministerial authority or whether we should baptize ecclesiastical anarchy and chaos.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dearly Bought

R. Scott Clark said:


> Absolutely it is. If someone is not in communion with a true church as defined by Belgic Art 29 then they are arguably outside the church. If someone is not in communion with any congregation, why on earth would they expect to come to the Lord's Table in a Reformed congregation?
> 
> Where on earth did we get the idea, apart from radical American individualism and egalitarianism, that private persons are the ultimate judge of whether they ought to be allowed to commune at the Lord's Table? Can people just walk in an baptize themselves? Can people just walk in and start preaching because they want to? Of course not! Well, maybe in Muenster or Zwickau but not in Geneva or Heidelberg.
> 
> Our Lord commissioned the administration of the supper to the visible, institutional church not to every private person.
> 
> The real question here is whether Christ instituted the visible church, whether it has ministerial authority or whether we should baptize ecclesiastical anarchy and chaos.



Amen.

I really have to commend the practice of the Canadian Reformed Churches. Irritated by playing "twenty questions" with the elders before taking the Lord's Supper with a sister church? Then bring what's called a "travel attestation" with you! Get your minister and elders to write up and sign a short note which attests that you are a member in good standing (not under discipline) of _____ Reformed Church. My wife and I plan to request such attestations the next time we intend to commune anywhere other than our local congregation.

Here's an example of such a form from the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (Liberated). Scroll to the bottom of the page and view the "Travel Attestation."


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Amen Bryan. Fills me with joy to see I am not the only one who thinks that.


----------



## Pergamum

raekwon said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> raekwon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like it's time for the Smiths to be told by the Session (lovingly) to either fish or cut bait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BUT...
> 
> Perhaps the Smiths don't believe in church membership. Surely this is not enough to deny them communion is it? The church that would do this could be charged with being manipulative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I wouldn't necessarily that's enough to deny someone communion, but I do have a real problem with people saying that they don't "believe in church membership" in the face of overwhelming evidence that even the early church had _some sort_ of mechanism for knowing who was and was not among their ranks. Membership is just our way of doing that. Every time I've spoken to someone who "doesn't believe in membership", it's because they've been burned by a church in the past and don't want to deal with that responsibility again. (Much like someone who, after a messy divorce, dates and sleeps around, even shacks up, but refuses to marry again.) Folks like that need to be lovingly given a hearing as to their past hurts from other churches, counseled as to their error regarding membership, and encouraged to join. If they still refuse, I'm not saying that they should be denied communion necessarily, but they should understand that they're part of a church that DOES believe in membership, and that there are some privileges that they just won't get without it (such as leadership, voting, etc).
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me that it's not a function of time only, but of involvement. For instance, take two families who've been consistently attending a church for the exact same amount of time. One only shows up on Sundays and hasn't formed many relationships with folks in the church. The other has become involved in a number of the church's ministries, has friendships out the wazoo, etc. I'd say that both families should be approached about membership eventually, but I'd make the latter a priority. They're already functioning as members for all intents and purposes, anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Blue Tick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like it's time for the Smiths to be told by the Session (lovingly) to either fish or cut bait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rae, can you elaborate a little more on this? Do you mean that if the "Smiths" deny membership they should be pressed into membership and or should be refused the Lord's Supper. What I'm trying to understand should a session actively refuse the Lord's Supper to folks who for all intents and purposes are not a member in any church but are long term visitors to the local body. Long term I mean that they are professing Christians by consistent fellowship on the Lord's day and display fruits of believing. However, there is no formal submission to the local session and no formal acknowledgement of belief before the session.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I answered the question thinking about membership in general, not about how it related to the Lord's Supper.
Click to expand...



Very good response and I benefitted from it.

For those visitors asking for proof that the NT teaches church membership where woudl you point them?


----------



## Pergamum

R. Scott Clark said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perg,
> 
> How do you define "church"?
Click to expand...


How do you define church? 

There seems to be the universal church of all true believers, and then there seems to be the local manifestations of that universal church in particular places.

However, the Reformers usually spoke of "marks" of a church and by those marks (that sacrament thingy) either baptists or presbyterians are not true churches (unless one can have an irregular church that is still a valid church) because one of our groups is not administering the sacraments correctly.



Dr. Clark, could you give us a summary of the proofs that local church membership is Biblically demanded?


----------



## Dearly Bought

Pergamum said:


> However, the Reformers usually spoke of "marks" of a church and by those marks (that sacrament thingy) either baptists or presbyterians are not true churches (unless one can have an irregular church that is still a valid church) because one of our groups is not administering the sacraments correctly.



This is very true. I think that you have to conclude that one of us is wrong on this matter and therefore not a true church. This doesn't automatically damn members of the erring church, but it does emphasize the importance of these matters.



Pergamum said:


> Dr. Clark, could you give us a summary of the proofs that local church membership is Biblically demanded?



I hope that this is not too forward of me, but I thought I might point to where Dr. Clark has already addressed this question in his essay on the Church:


> There is a widespread notion that a truly Spirit-led congregation would not keep anything so earthy as membership records. This is an unfounded and unbiblical assumption which does not square with biblical history and teaching.
> 
> In the Old Covenant, God is a bookkeeper. In Exodus 32:32 we see a very interesting phrase. In a prayer, Moses pleads with God not to blot him out of "the Book you have written." The Lord replies to Moses that He will indeed blot anyone who sins out of His "Book".46 David declares in Psalm 9.5 that the Lord has "blotted out" the name of his enemies forever.47 In Psalm 40:7 David is assured that his righteousness is written on God's scroll.
> 
> Many of these same themes regarding the "Book of Life" are evident in the Revelation of the Apostle John. To the Church in Sardis the Lord Jesus writes that He will not "blot out his name from the Book of Life" who is faithful and obedient to the Lord. Revelation 13:8; 17:8; 20:12,15; also refer to the Book of Life. It would seem that we are to conceive of a divinely kept book in which are recorded the names of all believers of all ages. This is not to say that there is an actual book, though there may well be.
> 
> In Psalm 69:28 David prays for the utter destruction of enemies and for them to be blotted out of "the Book of Life" and not to be listed with the righteous. In this same Psalm vv.9,10 David turns from the "book" to speak twice of the Qahal (which is translated in the LXX with Ekklesia and Synagogue (cf. Deuteronomy 9:10,14 where these two ideas are also closely connected). There is a close connection in David's mind between the Qahal and the "book".
> 
> Because God is revealed as a book keeper His Covenant people were also (according to the commandments of God) also book keepers.
> 
> There is significant evidence that in the Old Covenant there were membership rolls with the names of all the Covenant families and the Covenant heads of households. Genesis 5:1ff. speaks of the "book of the generations." Moses worked from existing books in compiling his (selective) genealogies. This idea of membership roll figured conspicuously in the life of the Qahal. Later after the exile when the beginnings of the Synagogue can be traced, there is archeological evidence that there were membership rolls there as well. It took at least twelve men in good standing in the community to form a synagogue.
> 
> God commanded Moses in Exodus 17:14 to write down the destruction of the Amelakites because without this record there would not be any. In turn (Deutronomy 25.19), God will "blot out" the Amelakites. In Exodus 24:7 we read of the "Book of the Covenant" which contained the laws by which God's Covenant people were to live. God commanded Moses to take a census of the people and to make a record of them (Exodus 30:11). Psalm 87:6 speaks of a "register of the peoples" (NIV). Ezekiel 13:9 speaks of a "register of the house of Israel" (NASB). There was a written record of the descendents of Aaron (Nu 3:10). It would seem to be beyond controversy that God's people kept written records during the Mosaic theocracy. The question remains then whether similar practices continued into the New Covenant era.
> 
> There is a great deal of unity and continuity between the Old Covenant conception of the Qahal and the New Covenant Ekklesia. Thus there is good reason to suspect that there is continuity in the practice of record keeping. Remember that in both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, one had to join the visible assembly and take the sign of the Covenant.
> 
> The most obvious examples of this sort of record keeping are the genealogies of Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. We know from Acts that the Apostles met first in the temple, and then later during missionary journeys, in the synagogue. The organization of the synagogue did play some roll in the beginning of the visible Church. We see in Luke 4:18ff. that there was a reading of the Scriptures and an exposition of the Scriptures in the Synagogue. This practice was continued in the early New Covenant Church.
> 
> Another piece of evidence which adds to the presumption of Church membership in the New Covenant Church is the mention in Acts 16:5 that the Church grew greatly in numbers. If the Church in the New Covenant largely equals the Qahal of the Old Covenant and if it grew in numbers then we can fairly say that these converts 'joined' the Church.
> 
> There is positive evidence of record keeping (membership lists) in the New Covenant Church. The problem in the daily distribution of bread in Acts 6:1 assumes some sort of record keeping of eligible widows. In
> 1 Timothy 5.9-16 Paul speaks explicitly about a list of names of Christian widows who were eligible for financial assistance from the Church. He even lays out the qualifications to be on the list. If the Church kept such lists for financial aid, can we reasonably assume that these widows were not on a membership roll? Moreover we cannot help but notice that again Paul's instructions regarding widows presupposes some sort of organized visible body of Christ who administered this aid to its members.


----------



## Pergamum

Dearly Bought said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, the Reformers usually spoke of "marks" of a church and by those marks (that sacrament thingy) either baptists or presbyterians are not true churches (unless one can have an irregular church that is still a valid church) because one of our groups is not administering the sacraments correctly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is very true. I think that you have to conclude that one of us is wrong on this matter and therefore not a true church. This doesn't automatically damn members of the erring church, but it does emphasize the importance of these matters.
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Clark, could you give us a summary of the proofs that local church membership is Biblically demanded?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope that this is not too forward of me, but I thought I might point to where Dr. Clark has already addressed this question in his essay on the Church:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a widespread notion that a truly Spirit-led congregation would not keep anything so earthy as membership records. This is an unfounded and unbiblical assumption which does not square with biblical history and teaching.
> 
> In the Old Covenant, God is a bookkeeper. In Exodus 32:32 we see a very interesting phrase. In a prayer, Moses pleads with God not to blot him out of "the Book you have written." The Lord replies to Moses that He will indeed blot anyone who sins out of His "Book".46 David declares in Psalm 9.5 that the Lord has "blotted out" the name of his enemies forever.47 In Psalm 40:7 David is assured that his righteousness is written on God's scroll.
> 
> Many of these same themes regarding the "Book of Life" are evident in the Revelation of the Apostle John. To the Church in Sardis the Lord Jesus writes that He will not "blot out his name from the Book of Life" who is faithful and obedient to the Lord. Revelation 13:8; 17:8; 20:12,15; also refer to the Book of Life. It would seem that we are to conceive of a divinely kept book in which are recorded the names of all believers of all ages. This is not to say that there is an actual book, though there may well be.
> 
> In Psalm 69:28 David prays for the utter destruction of enemies and for them to be blotted out of "the Book of Life" and not to be listed with the righteous. In this same Psalm vv.9,10 David turns from the "book" to speak twice of the Qahal (which is translated in the LXX with Ekklesia and Synagogue (cf. Deuteronomy 9:10,14 where these two ideas are also closely connected). There is a close connection in David's mind between the Qahal and the "book".
> 
> Because God is revealed as a book keeper His Covenant people were also (according to the commandments of God) also book keepers.
> 
> There is significant evidence that in the Old Covenant there were membership rolls with the names of all the Covenant families and the Covenant heads of households. Genesis 5:1ff. speaks of the "book of the generations." Moses worked from existing books in compiling his (selective) genealogies. This idea of membership roll figured conspicuously in the life of the Qahal. Later after the exile when the beginnings of the Synagogue can be traced, there is archeological evidence that there were membership rolls there as well. It took at least twelve men in good standing in the community to form a synagogue.
> 
> God commanded Moses in Exodus 17:14 to write down the destruction of the Amelakites because without this record there would not be any. In turn (Deutronomy 25.19), God will "blot out" the Amelakites. In Exodus 24:7 we read of the "Book of the Covenant" which contained the laws by which God's Covenant people were to live. God commanded Moses to take a census of the people and to make a record of them (Exodus 30:11). Psalm 87:6 speaks of a "register of the peoples" (NIV). Ezekiel 13:9 speaks of a "register of the house of Israel" (NASB). There was a written record of the descendents of Aaron (Nu 3:10). It would seem to be beyond controversy that God's people kept written records during the Mosaic theocracy. The question remains then whether similar practices continued into the New Covenant era.
> 
> There is a great deal of unity and continuity between the Old Covenant conception of the Qahal and the New Covenant Ekklesia. Thus there is good reason to suspect that there is continuity in the practice of record keeping. Remember that in both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, one had to join the visible assembly and take the sign of the Covenant.
> 
> The most obvious examples of this sort of record keeping are the genealogies of Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. We know from Acts that the Apostles met first in the temple, and then later during missionary journeys, in the synagogue. The organization of the synagogue did play some roll in the beginning of the visible Church. We see in Luke 4:18ff. that there was a reading of the Scriptures and an exposition of the Scriptures in the Synagogue. This practice was continued in the early New Covenant Church.
> 
> Another piece of evidence which adds to the presumption of Church membership in the New Covenant Church is the mention in Acts 16:5 that the Church grew greatly in numbers. If the Church in the New Covenant largely equals the Qahal of the Old Covenant and if it grew in numbers then we can fairly say that these converts 'joined' the Church.
> 
> There is positive evidence of record keeping (membership lists) in the New Covenant Church. The problem in the daily distribution of bread in Acts 6:1 assumes some sort of record keeping of eligible widows. In
> 1 Timothy 5.9-16 Paul speaks explicitly about a list of names of Christian widows who were eligible for financial assistance from the Church. He even lays out the qualifications to be on the list. If the Church kept such lists for financial aid, can we reasonably assume that these widows were not on a membership roll? Moreover we cannot help but notice that again Paul's instructions regarding widows presupposes some sort of organized visible body of Christ who administered this aid to its members.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Cool, thanks! Something meaty to chew on.

I would challenge the fact that either the baptists or Presbyterians must be a false church. I want to be generous and call you paedos true churches. To charge the OPC with being a false church is ridiculous.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Are church members (or self-professed Christians for that matter) "free agents" relative to the visible, institutional church?


----------



## Pergamum

Thanks again, more meat to chew.... 


Anything else?

What about folks who are forced into a highly mobile lifestyle....can one do that and still be an obedient Christian if local church membership fixes them to one location?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

There are at four sources for the generally held modern "evangelical" skepticism about the visible, institutional church. One is the radical spirit of Anabaptism which manifests itself in Azusa Street/Topeka Pentecostalism. Another is Pietism which places private religious experience above all other values and virtues. A third is the radically egalitarian (democratic) spirit of American evangelicalism post 1789 (with roots in the so-called 1st Great Awakening). The fourth source is the old German liberal notion that religious movements develop from "Kerygma" (authentic, existential, preaching) to "Dogma" (consolidation and ossification). Under the influence of the other movements and ideas this idea has been widely adopted by modern evangelicals despite the fact that, whatever formal evidence there might be for this pattern in church history, in substance it is a failed theory.

None of these movements has anything to do with NT Christianity. To read the values of these movements into the NT is to do injustice to the NT on its own terms. To read the NT through the lenses of these three movements is to do injustice to the Christianity of the NT which was churchly and genuinely Pentecostal. Remember, the foundation of the NT is said not to be the private religious experiences of occasionally gathered together as the Spirit led but "the apostles and prophets" (Eph 2:20). These were offices and officers. The idea of order and structure are inherent to officers. The NT church wasn't Quaker or Quietist. They did not sit about waiting for the Spirit to descend. In the Apostolic church the Spirit did descend and sovereignly operate in their midst in a unique and powerful way. Through the Apostles the Spirit fulfilled our Lord's intention of establishing an organized, visible, disciplined church with officers and membership.

The White Horse Inn guys were just talking recently about the foundational nature of the Apostolic church. It would be worth a listen.


----------



## Pergamum

What about those in highly mobile lifestyles.... can one be a Bedoin and still a Christian if one moves around all the time?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Even Bedouins live in groups capable of forming a congregation. In monasticism biblical? Does Scripture place any limits on "lifestyle choices" or must the faith constantly adapt to whatever choices sovereign individuals make?


----------



## Pergamum

Yes, mobile churches for mobile peoples....


----------

