# Communion tokens



## Croghanite

here
Did not know this. I wanted to pass on the information.


----------



## Skyler

I've heard about communion tokens. From a Curt Daniels lecture in the 75-hour series on Calvinism.

He covers almost everything.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

Is this a question of pro or con or just for informational purposes?


----------



## Rich Koster

Interesting that lead was used.


----------



## Croghanite

Southern Presbyterian said:


> Is this a question of pro or con or just for informational purposes?



I was passing on the info. Discuss all you want brethren. 

I do wonder why they used tokens instead of just informing the folks they were admitted to the table. I just came across the information so I have not thought much about it.


----------



## Skyler

Presumably it was because they didn't want to risk someone "sneaking" past without having actually been approved, requiring each person to turn over their token--though why someone couldn't just borrow/steal someone else's, I'm not sure.


----------



## Whitefield

Skyler said:


> Presumably it was because they didn't want to risk someone "sneaking" past without having actually been approved, requiring each person to turn over their token--though why someone couldn't just borrow/steal someone else's, I'm not sure.



Or create counterfeits.


----------



## Skyler

Whitefield said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presumably it was because they didn't want to risk someone "sneaking" past without having actually been approved, requiring each person to turn over their token--though why someone couldn't just borrow/steal someone else's, I'm not sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or create counterfeits.
Click to expand...


Presumably that would be too much effort for such a person to go to, merely to attend a sacrament at the local church.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

It seems to me that this is going a far bit beyond Scripture. Guarding the table is needful and Paul instructed that this be done by admonishment. He did not say, "Mint ye tokens for the admittance to the table."  [or two token, if you will]


----------



## MW

LAYMAN JOE said:


> I do wonder why they used tokens instead of just informing the folks they were admitted to the table.



In the Scottish communion season many people would come from other districts and the communions were attended by large numbers which did not allow for careful personal attention; hence the use of the token in admitting people to the table. They indicate the conscientious concern of the Session to oversee the communion, and obviously required the people to use the tokens with discretion.


----------



## chbrooking

I actually appreciate the impetus behind them. I don't think it would work today, nor would I want to see it implemented. But I believe it is incumbent on the pastor(s) to protect others from eating and drinking judgment on themselves. And yet I also believe it would be wrong to deny to the table one of Christ's sheep who could worthily partake. So I've often been perplexed about how the table ought to be properly fenced. Though we (pastors/elders) try to get around to any visitors prior to the service, someone could slip through, particularly if they arrive late. So we fence with a verbal warning/exhortation. But ultimately that leaves it to the conscience of the individual whether or not he or she will partake. I've often wondered whether or not that is sufficient protection on my part.

I know that if someone counterfeited a token , I'd be in the clear. But am I in the clear with just a warning? I honestly don't know. Like I said. I'm not in favor of the tokens, but I appreciate the idea behind them ... very much actually. 

These tokens certainly would explain less frequent celebrations of the Lord's Supper. Can you imagine having to get around to everyone personally each week or even month?!?!


----------



## Whitefield

Skyler said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presumably it was because they didn't want to risk someone "sneaking" past without having actually been approved, requiring each person to turn over their token--though why someone couldn't just borrow/steal someone else's, I'm not sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or create counterfeits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Presumably that would be too much effort for such a person to go to, merely to attend a sacrament at the local church.
Click to expand...


It was a joke.


----------



## Skyler

Whitefield said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or create counterfeits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Presumably that would be too much effort for such a person to go to, merely to attend a sacrament at the local church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a joke.
Click to expand...


I was uncertain owing to the lack of a smiley in your post. Therefore, I answered seriously, so as not to risk laughing at a serious post.

However, with your permission, I will now laugh at you:


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist

Pastor Matthew has hit the nail on the head with the history of communion tokens. The Session would issue their own members with a token and they would hand it in at the service they visited.
They are still used by some Presbyterian churches in Scotland to this day. Usually at the Saturday preparatory service after the service has ended all intending communicants will be asked to remain for a few minutes. The Session will be constituted, there will be prayer made for those who come to the Table on the following morning and the Pastor will distribute to each person a token as they leave. At the communion service as we take our seats an elder will be present to receive the token.
Now supposing you turn up on Sunday morning with no token, you will be given one at the door.
Personally, I don't think it has any value in our current situation. However, some people receive benefit from it and I am sure that is why it continues in some congregations. The original situation where people travel to other congregations Communion has more or less passed, and besides the crowds aren't so great. 
Some larger congregations in the Free Church of Scotland will issue membership cards to their own members and an elder will visit prior to communion. The card will be handed back in at some point in the communion service, either in the offering plate or to an elder at the door. I think the Church of Scotland also does this.
A number of congregations will have in addition to the Communion season, Communion services where no preparatory services have taken place. On these occasions neither tokens or cards will be used.


----------



## Whitefield

This seems to me to go way beyond 1 Cor. 11:27-32.


----------



## yeutter

*Not always lead and pewter*



Rich Koster said:


> Interesting that lead was used.


It was not always lead that was used. I have brass, bronze, aluminum, and unidentified white metal Communion tokens in addition to lead and pewter. I have Church of Scotland, assorted Presbyterian, a few Congregational and even a couple of Scottish Episcopal Church Communion tokens.


----------



## ewenlin

I think it was called "Fencing the Table" as coined by the Scottish who abided by it...

Someone correct me if I'm wrong

still, interesting..


----------



## Whitefield

ewenlin said:


> I think it was called "Fencing the Table" as coined by the Scottish who abided by it...
> 
> Someone correct me if I'm wrong
> 
> still, interesting..



I can understand "fencing the table" by giving a strong warning from 1 Cor. 11:28. But I find no biblical or confessional warrant for examining a person each time before communion and issuing them a metal token.


----------



## ewenlin

I think what they did was to issue the tokens on a prior service to those who are members to be used at the communion the next day.. I'm trying to find the info for this still =(

There are factors that they had to deal with probably at that time which warrent-ed such practices? I stand to be corrected...

Ewen


----------



## Rangerus

I clicked on the home page link and found this gem. Bible Gum "One to Chew, One to Share."


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih

I am thinking of the modern equivalent being a plastic membership card that could be swiped on a computer inside the door which would bring up all your communion history and any flagged reasons why the elders think you should not take it etc... with a complex sign up form with lots of boxes and "refer to question 22a" splashed throughout.


----------



## ewenlin

hahaha wouldn't that be the day... =p


----------



## chbrooking

Whitefield said:


> I can understand "fencing the table" by giving a strong warning from 1 Cor. 11:28. But I find no biblical or confessional warrant for examining a person each time before communion and issuing them a metal token.



I think the same warrant would be the warrant behind examining them at all. For one thing, it's fulfilling the positive side of the 6th commandment. The shepherds are to protect the sheep. Bear in mind that you don't have to be an unbeliever to unworthily partake. 

I'm NOT arguing for the tokens. Just throwing my  at your post.


----------



## Whitefield

chbrooking said:


> I think the same warrant would be the warrant behind examining them at all. For one thing, it's fulfilling the positive side of the 6th commandment. The shepherds are to protect the sheep. Bear in mind that you don't have to be an unbeliever to unworthily partake.



If this is a 6th commandment issue and under the requirement of a shepherd protecting the sheep (both solemn responsibilities), would you say that a pastor is to personally examine each communicant prior to each celebration of the Lord's supper?

The clearest statement in the Scriptures to this matter says this examination (and responsibility) is the responsibility of the communicant (1 Cor. 11:28 - ἑαυτον).


----------



## Gesetveemet

> It was John Calvin who first saw the usefulness of tokens in such a system. He wrote, “Each person should receive tokens of lead for those of his household who were instructed; and the strangers who might come, on giving testimony of their faith, should also receive tokens, and those who had none should not be admitted to the tables”.



Presbyterian Church Communion Tokens




> “Calvin therefore implemented the use of the table token in 1560. . .”


 “Called to Confess” _by Cornels Harinck _






Exodus 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.


----------



## Whitefield

Gesetveemet said:


> It was John Calvin who first saw the usefulness of tokens in such a system. He wrote, “Each person should receive tokens of lead for those of his household who were instructed; and the strangers who might come, on giving testimony of their faith, should also receive tokens, and those who had none should not be admitted to the tables”.
Click to expand...


This is not directed at you Gesetveemet, but at the linked page. 

This is one of my pet peeves: why go to the trouble of quoting Calvin and not cite the source? I like to collect quotes and snippets, but refuse to use them unless there is a way to check the original.


----------



## Gesetveemet

I searched for the source before I posted but could not find it either. The bottom quote is supplied with the book reference.





Gesetveemet said:


> “Calvin therefore implemented the use of the table token in 1560. . .”
> 
> 
> 
> “Called to Confess” _by Cornels Harinck _
Click to expand...


----------



## Whitefield

Gesetveemet said:


> I searched for the source before I posted but could not find it either. The bottom quote is supplied with the book reference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gesetveemet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Calvin therefore implemented the use of the table token in 1560. . .”
> 
> 
> 
> “Called to Confess” _by Cornels Harinck _
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I wonder if Harinck cites the source.


----------



## Gesetveemet

> I wonder if Harinck cites the source.



 Negative


----------



## Whitefield

Gesetveemet said:


> I wonder if Harinck cites the source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Negative
Click to expand...




I guess I could say:



> It was John Calvin who first saw the usefulness of helium over hydrogen in filling balloons. “Hydrogen explodeth much, but helium is peaceful”. Calvin therefore implemented the use of helium in 1560.





I am making fun not of tokens, etc. but of the lack of references in a quote.


----------



## william.m.

From "Scotch Communion Services"by Rev William Milroy.(1881)
"After the benediction (after saturday morning service)the members of the Session are requested by the pastor to come forward in front of the pulpit, the Session is formally constituted by prayer, and "tokens" of admission to the Lord's table are distributed to intending Communicants.The use of tokens dates back to the first Reformation, and serves quietly to secure the exclusion of the unworthy....."
It is still the normal practice in the Free Church (continuing )The Free Church, and the Free Presbyterian Church , and probably in some ,at least of the Church of Scotland


----------



## HanleyBri

*the use of communion tokens*

The first suggestion for tokens used in fencing the table came from John Calvin and Peter Viret to the Council of Geneva on the 30th January 1560. The first use of tokens in Scotland was in St. Andrews on the 2nd May 1588. The use of tokens has a reformed history within the Presbyterian church. 

Scottish and early America Presbyterian also practiced the use of communion tokens to facilitate the fencing of the Lord's table. The elders would hand out the tokens at a prior service to those deemed adequately preparted. Upon coming to the Lord's Table the tokens were collected before sitting at the table. 

The use of tokens, from "The Code: The Book of Government 
and Order of the RPC of Ireland"; 

==========QUOTE========================
9.10. The Lord's Supper shall be observed at least twice a 
year. The Session in each congregation shall determine how 
often the ordinance shall be observed and shall administer it 
in a constituted capacity.

9.11. Public intimation of the date for observance of the 
Lord's Supper shall be made in advance. Preparation 
services shall be held at convenient times.
Intending communicants shall be furnished with tokens. 
Session, acting on its previous judgment of the fitness of 
each applicant, shall distribute the tokens [emphasis mine], 
and many grant permission to visiting believers whose 
profession and practice are known to them, to partake of the 
Lord's Supper.

9.12. On the day on which the ordinance is to be observed, 
after an appropriate sermon:-

(1) the Session shall be called forward;
(2) the minister shall read the scriptural authority for 
observance of the sacrament, e.g. 1 Corinthians 11:23-28;
(3) the minister shall "Fence the Table" from an 
appropriate portion of Scripture, and read the Terms of 
Membership; solemn words of warning shall be spoken to 
intending communicants urging them to careful self-
examination and deep searching of heard lest they should ear 
and drink unworthily and so sin against "the body and blood 
of the Lord"; words of loving invitation and encouragement 
shall be given to those who are conscious of their sinfulness, 
are truly repentant, place their trust on the atonement and 
intercession of Jesus Christ, love Him as their Saviour, desire 
to commemorate His death and pledge themselves anew to 
His service;
(4) when the communicants have taken their places at 
the Table and the tokens have been collected [ emphasis 
mine], the minister shall take the bread and give thanks after 
the example of Jesus Christ, and shall proceed to break the 
bread and distribute the bread and wine as symbols of the 
body and blood of Jesus Christ;
(5) a suitable address should be given to the 
communicants while seated at the Table.

9.13. A Service of Thanksgiving should be held at a 
convenient time following the observance of the Lord's 
Supper, during which the minister may review the services 
connected with the observance of the ordinance and deliver 
such concluding appeals and exhortations as may appear 
suitable.

9.14. In special circumstances, the Session may administer 
the Lord's Supper in the home but there shall be public 
intimation beforehand, and the administration shall be 
preceded by the preaching of the Word.

-----An American Presbyterian Paper Token------


----------



## Marrow Man

ewenlin said:


> I think it was called "Fencing the Table" as *coined* by the Scottish who abided by it...



Was that an intentional or unintentional pun?


----------



## Rich Koster

yeutter said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that lead was used.
> 
> 
> 
> It was not always lead that was used. I have brass, bronze, aluminum, and unidentified white metal Communion tokens in addition to lead and pewter. I have Church of Scotland, assorted Presbyterian, a few Congregational and even a couple of Scottish Episcopal Church Communion tokens.
Click to expand...


I thank you for more info. It may seem weird, but I enjoy looking at old Church articles. Are you a collector or did a family member hand this collection down to you?


----------



## yeutter

Rich Koster said:


> yeutter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that lead was used.
> 
> 
> 
> It was not always lead that was used. I have brass, bronze, aluminum, and unidentified white metal Communion tokens in addition to lead and pewter. I have Church of Scotland, assorted Presbyterian, a few Congregational and even a couple of Scottish Episcopal Church Communion tokens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thank you for more info. It may seem weird, but I enjoy looking at old Church articles. Are you a collector or did a family member hand this collection down to you?
Click to expand...

I am a collector. I did not inherit them. I am a German American. We Germans did not go in for communion tokens much. I have a couple of hundred. I always have some for sale if somone needs one for Sabbath School instruction or some other purpose.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

I own several Scottish communion tokens. They are still used by the Glasgow congregation of which my wife was a member when she lived in Scotland.

I am often bothered by the failure to fence the Lord’s table in American Presbyterian congregations. In a smaller congregation, the elders should know all the members personally and make an effort to speak with visitors. We do at SRPC. However, the pastor and elders have an obligation to guard the table, for the protection of both illicit communicants and the congregation.


----------



## yeutter

I agree, fencing the table is something which should be done. How it is done is not the issue. In the early eastern liturgies there would be a portion of the service which included the reading of scripture and the singing of psalms, then before the recitation of the creed, the sub deacon would cry out, "the doors, the doors." At that time all the catechumans and those under suspension would leave. It was only then that the communion liturgy would begin


----------



## Whitefield

yeutter said:


> I agree, fencing the table is something which should be done. How it is done is not the issue. In the early eastern liturgies there would be a portion of the service which included the reading of scripture and the singing of psalms, then before the recitation of the creed, the sub deacon would cry out, "the doors, the doors." At that time all the catechumans and those under suspension would leave. It was only then that the communion liturgy would begin



Sounds like for them 1 Cor. 11:28 wasn't enough.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

My wife shared with me what it was like at the service the night before communion in her Glasgow Free Church Continuing congregation. At some point, those who were to receive their communion tokens were asked to remain while the others left. She spoke of the pain of seeing those leave who were not to be included in the next day’s communion. But, then she realized this was nothing compared to the separation to occur at the great white throne judgment.

-----Added 5/5/2009 at 12:42:23 EST-----



Whitefield said:


> Sounds like for them 1 Cor. 11:28 wasn't enough.



1 Cor. 11:29-30-

For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.​
-is sufficient reason to go beyond self examination. Elders are given authority to bind and loose.


----------



## Whitefield

I'm sure glad I don't need a lead token to get into heaven.

-----Added 5/5/2009 at 12:46:49 EST-----

Elders are given authority (where?) to bind and loose (what?).


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

Whitefield said:


> I'm sure glad I don't need a lead token to get into heaven.



John Wesley issued communion certificates to those examined before communion time. This was not merely a Presbyterian practice.

Communion tokens were indicative of the seriousness with which Presbyterians took the authority of the church, the integrity of the communion table, and the role the church played in God’s plan of salvation. It is too bad our age typically operates with an inadequate and unbiblical ecclesiology.

*The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.* [WCF XXV:2]​


----------



## Quickened

Whitefield said:


> I'm sure glad I don't need a lead token to get into heaven.
> 
> -----Added 5/5/2009 at 12:46:49 EST-----
> 
> Elders are given authority (where?) to bind and loose (what?).



I wanted to quote this post because i am not seeing this practice in scripture either.

If Elders would be given this authority why wouldnt it be directly shown in this passage or perhaps in the pastoral epistles?

Isnt this going above and beyond scripture?

I looked to my reformation study bible because i dont currently have any commentaries on this book and it stated the following...



> It is important to take this whole section together as a unit, and vv.33, 34 make plain Paul still has in mind the abuses mentioned in vv.21,22. Phrases such as "in an unworthy manner" (V.27) and "Let a person examine himself" (v. 28) can be extended and applied to many circumstances, but we should be careful not to wrench them from their context. In Particular, it would be a misreading of v.30 to think that God routinely brings illness and death to Christians who, in spite of their spiritual feelings, partake of the supper.
> 
> The problem in Corinth was much more specific and serious. Some of the Corinthians were tearing apart the unity of the Christian body represented by the one loaf (10:17). The warning in v.29 about "discerning the body" almost surely refers to this failure to maintain the unity of the church as the body of Christ (see 12:12 note). Because some of the believers in Corinth were celebrating the supper in a way that destroyed the unity it represents, God had brought judgment upon the community. God's purpose in judging these believers, however, was to prevent them from being "condemned along with the world" (v.32)



That makes some sense to me although I would like to know more about what the church in Corinth was doing specifically (perhaps not possible) but either way I see no biblical reason for something of this nature. It seems to go beyond a person examining himself. If that were the case why didnt Paul just say for the person to be "Examined by" and then someone else?

Perhaps someone could shed some light!


----------



## Whitefield

If we are considering extra-biblical comments on this matter, we might consider this comment from Calvin, _Institutes _ 4.1.15:



> But in thinking it a sacrilege to partake of the Lord’s bread with the wicked, they are much more rigid than Paul. For when Paul urges us to a holy and pure partaking of it, he does not require that one examine another, or every one the whole church, but that each individual prove himself [1 Corinthians 11:28]. If it were unlawful to partake of communion with an unworthy person, surely Paul would bid us investigate whether there is anyone in the multitude whose uncleanliness pollutes us. But when he requires each one to prove himself alone, he shows that we are not at all harmed if anyone unworthy foists himself upon us. What follows agrees with this: “He who eats unworthily eats and drinks judgment upon himself” [1 Corinthians 11:29]. Paul does not say “upon others,” but “upon himself.” And justly. For individuals ought not to have the authority to determine who are to be received and who are to be rejected. This cognizance belongs to the church as a whole and cannot be exercised without lawful order, as will be stated more fully below. It will therefore be wicked for any individual to be soiled with another’s unworthiness, whom he cannot and ought not to bar from access.


----------



## Prufrock

Respectfully, the above quote, wrested from its context, is a complete misrepresentation (albeit unintentionally) of Calvin and the Reformed tradition. The quote you have provided has to do with individual church members being assured that the efficacy of the supper for them is not harmed by the participation of the profane, and as a warning that it is not up to individuals to determine with whom they will partake of this supper: this would lead to disorder. Note, however, that he immediate says (in your quote):


> For individuals ought not to have the authority to determine who are to be received and who are to be rejected. *This cognizance belongs to the church as a whole and cannot be exercised without lawful order, as will be stated more fully below.*



It is a complete misunderstanding if this is taken to mean that Calvin thought the only fencing was a verbal warning for all to examine themselves. Note what Calvin says a few chapters later (4.12.5):



> And here, also, regard must be had to the Lord’s Supper, which might he profaned by a promiscuous admission. For it is most true, that he who is intrusted with the dispensation of it, if he knowingly and willingly admits any unworthy person whom he ought and is able to repel, is as guilty of sacrilege as if he had cast the Lord’s body to dogs.
> .....
> Therefore, lest this most sacred mystery should be exposed to ignominy, great selection is required in dispensing it, and this cannot be except by the jurisdiction of the Church.



Elders examining and exercising discipline with regard to the supper is wholly another matter than individuals "fencing the table" themselves.

I don't see why everyone is so up in arms against the tokens; it is not as though they taught dogmatically that the warrant for tokens _per se_ was found in scripture, but rather simply that tokens were a simple, easy, pragmatic means of exercising discipline with regards to the supper.

-----Added 5/5/2009 at 12:43:22 EST-----

Also, the introduction to the very section (4.1.15) which you quoted:



> I admit, that it is a great disgrace if dogs and swine are admitted among the children of God; much more, if the sacred body of Christ is prostituted to them. And, indeed, when churches are well regulated, they will not bear the wicked in their bosom, nor will they admit the worthy and unworthy indiscriminately to that sacred feast. But because pastors are not always sedulously vigilant, are sometimes also more indulgent than they ought, or are prevented from acting so strictly as they could wish; the consequence is, that even the openly wicked are not always excluded from the fellowship of the saints. This I admit to be a vice, and I have no wish to extenuate it, seeing that Paul sharply rebukes it in the Corinthians. But although the Church fail in *her duty*, it does not therefore follow that every private individual is to decide the question of separation for himself.


----------



## chbrooking

Whitefield said:


> chbrooking said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the same warrant would be the warrant behind examining them at all. For one thing, it's fulfilling the positive side of the 6th commandment. The shepherds are to protect the sheep. Bear in mind that you don't have to be an unbeliever to unworthily partake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this is a 6th commandment issue and under the requirement of a shepherd protecting the sheep (both solemn responsibilities), would you say that a pastor is to personally examine each communicant prior to each celebration of the Lord's supper?
> 
> The clearest statement in the Scriptures to this matter says this examination (and responsibility) is the responsibility of the communicant (1 Cor. 11:28 - ἑαυτον).
Click to expand...


I suppose I'd answer you by saying, ideally yes. Do I think that is practical, no. I'm not really saying or maintaining anything. I only expressed appreciation for the idea behind the tokens. I have often wondered to what extent the shepherd is responsible to _ensure_ the worthy participation in the supper. If I build a fence around my pool, I'm protecting the public. But there's a significant difference between a 3' fence and an 8' fence. I am on record as saying that I don't think the tokens would work in this country today. But I DO appreciate the pastoral concern behind them.


----------



## Whitefield

> The quote you have provided has to do with individual church members being assured that the efficacy of the supper for them is not harmed by the participation of the profane, and as a warning that it is not up to individuals to determine with whom they will partake of this supper: this would lead to disorder.



Point 1. If I thought this quote settled the matter I would have said so. Rather, I was inserting a quote which said that any communicant need not worry about being affected by a communicant who climbed over the fence. That's the point Calvin is making, and that is the only point I was making. The reason I make this point is there was a comment earlier that the elders have to protect the congregation from illicit communicants.




> It is a complete misunderstanding if this is taken to mean that Calvin thought the only fencing was a verbal warning for all to examine themselves.



Point 2. I never said it was. Why is that people are so quick to read so much into someone's comment? Again, it is addressing those who might be fearful that someone is at the table who shouldn't be there and that fact might be hurtful to the one who is there correctly.



> Elders examining and exercising discipline with regard to the supper is wholly another matter than individuals "fencing the table" themselves.



Point 3. In subsequent chapters, Calvin does talk about keeping people from the table, but I didn't see anywhere where he said that was a function of the elders. I think the exclusion/inclusion issue is a function of the pastor and not the elders. This brings me back to the question, "what biblical authority do elders have in performing this function?" When the statement is made, "Elders are given authority to bind and loose." The question must be asked, who gives them that authority, and what is the limits to what they can bind and loose? I think the scriptural evidence points more towards the office of pastor as having this authority, than it does to the office of elder. If one says, "this authority can be delegated" then I would ask based on what, and how much of the pastor's responsibility can be delegated, and by whom? 



> I don't see why everyone is so up in arms against the tokens; it is not as though they taught dogmatically that the warrant for tokens per se was found in scripture, but rather simply that tokens were a simple, easy, pragmatic means of exercising discipline with regards to the supper.



Point 4. To me it repesents that the one extending the elements of communion to the communicant probably doesn't know the person receiving, if he did, there would be no need of a token. The token repesents to me the fact that there is a third party between the pastor and the recipient who is actually making decisions which should be reserved to the office of the pastor.


----------



## Prufrock

Apologies: from your posts #15, 18, 24 and 38, I thought it clear you were advocating that the only fencing belonged to the verbal warning and subsequent self-examination; it was only natural to read your Calvin quote in this context.


----------



## Whitefield

Prufrock said:


> Apologies: from your posts #15, 18, 24 and 38, I thought it clear you were advocating that the only fencing belonged to the verbal warning and subsequent self-examination; it was only natural to read your Calvin quote in this context.



No apologies necessary. I was unclear about what I was arguing against. Hopefully I did in the last posting. I do not see inclusion/exclusion as scriptural power given to the office of elder, rather it is held in the office of the pastor.


----------



## jambo

I actually thought communion tokens was standard practce among presbyterians throughout the world. The tokens are just little cards with your name on it. You do not need to bring you token to communion as visitors and non-members can partake. However after communion the tokens gathered in and so the session know who attended communion and who didn't. Is it not in the rules that you must attend communion once a year?

In terms of tokens being used in fencing the table it really depends upon the strictness of the session. A lot of congregations are quite lax and anyone can take it whilst other congregations, particularly the Free Presbyterian or Reformed Presbyterian goups.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> I am thinking of the modern equivalent being a plastic membership card that could be swiped on a computer inside the door which would bring up all your communion history and any flagged reasons why the elders think you should not take it etc... with a complex sign up form with lots of boxes and "refer to question 22a" splashed throughout.



Homeland security could help us with this.


----------



## chbrooking

Lance,
I understood you the way Paul initially did as well, for whatever that's worth. 
The subsequent question goes to quite a different debate. Your division between the pastor and the elders . . . on what do you base it? Probably not the right forum for this, but I'm curious.


----------



## Whitefield

chbrooking said:


> Lance,
> I understood you the way Paul initially did as well, for whatever that's worth.
> The subsequent question goes to quite a different debate. Your division between the pastor and the elders . . . on what do you base it? Probably not the right forum for this, but I'm curious.



When I said pastor I meant the teaching elder. And when I said elders I meant the ruling elders. My understanding is that teaching elder has authority and responsibilities which are exclusively reserved to him in the church (e.g. the sacraments).


----------



## chbrooking

Gotcha. Thanks.


----------



## Whitefield

chbrooking said:


> Gotcha. Thanks.



Clark, one further explanation of what I'm thinking. Just a quick glance at the OPC BCO I see words used for pastors which are not used for ruling elders ("feed and tend the flock", "to administer the sacraments", "to shepherd the flock"). It seems to me that such a serious matter as to refuse the elements of communion to one coming to receive from the Lord's table is a pastoral matter and should fall under the purview of the pastor.


----------



## chbrooking

Yes, I see your point. I hadn't thought of that before.


----------



## william.m.

Once in the Isle of Lewis on a communion Sabbath a man was seen on his knees searching in the grass outside the church.On being asked , "did you lose your token"?The reply came ,"No, but I lost the bit of lead that they gave me".


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

Whitefield said:


> I do not see inclusion/exclusion as scriptural power given to the office of elder, rather it is held in the office of the pastor.





Both Ruling and Teaching Elders exercise their office in the ministry of discipline, formal and informal. They admonish, rebuke, suspend, excommunicate and depose. This is a corporate power of jurisdiction, exercised in church courts, most often the session. The reason Elders serve communion is to demonstrate their oversight over the Lord’s Table.

Jesus speaks of such corporate authority in Matthew 18:18. In Acts 20:28, Paul exhorts the Ephesian elders to “take heed” of the flock “over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers” (bishops). Then, 1 Cor. 5:5 tells the church to deliver an unrepentant known sinner to “Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirt may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” What does excommunication mean if not to be excluded from the table by authority of the elders acting as a court of the church, and the subsequent enforcement of their censure.

Certainly, verbal admonition regarding self examination should be part of the typical communion service. This warns individuals about secret sins of which they have not repented. Elder oversight of communion is to prohibit those outwardly unqualified from receiving. These prohibitions would include:

1) Those not having received the Triune baptism in water.
2) Those never making a credible and biblical profession of saving faith in Christ.
3) Those not accountable to the authority of a biblical church (making obvious exceptions for the spiritual refugees we find today who find themselves between churches).
4) Those living in blatant and unrepentant sin.

In a small congregation, where elders know the members individually and interview visitors at communion services, communion tokens are not necessary. In larger congregations or larger communion gatherings (as one historically had in Scottish communion seasons), tokens were useful. These were a circumstance of worship, not a new element. I could see such as potentially useful today to communicate that the table and communion is not a private and individual matter, but a divine ordinance given to the church for the perfecting of the saints and done under the authority of elders. For that reason, I oppose having non-elders serve communion, though there is no absolute theological prohibition against such.


----------

