# Communion to Non-Christians



## saintjonny (Jan 27, 2009)

Ok, throughout Church history, people have taken this verse:



> Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. (1 Cor. 11:27, NASB)



As a commandment that a person must be aware of forgiveness of sins and the cross and coming in a spirit of repentance in order to receive the Lord's Supper. As such churches throughout the years have barred non-Christians and even sometimes un-baptised or non-members. 

But the thing is this verse doesn't refer to that, but they refer to the spirit it is taken in the sense of not being greedy, not fighting to get the meal, but eating as a loving community where we put each other first. The context makes this clear as that is the issue Paul has been addressing with the Corinthians, and he goes on to say:



> So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another. If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment. The remaining matters I will arrange when I come. (33-34, NASB)



So my question is this. On what basis do we not give the Lord's Supper to non-Christians? I have even heard it proposed that if we allow non-Christians to partake, then it's a physical and practical communication of the gospel in that it allows them to see how the gospel creates a community of love and grace in Christ. What do you think?

(And obviously this is going to be shot out of the water in your mind if you hold a higher view of the Lord's Supper such that it is more than just a symbol of remembrance.)


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 27, 2009)

It is more than just a remembrance of what He's done. It is a means of receiving Christ through a spiritual means. It isn't His literal body, but this is one way of receiving His grace. It is considered one of the tools of grace. I'll go look up some Scripture cuz I know there is one which speaks to the fact that it is more than just a remembrance. Might take me awhile to find.


----------



## Herald (Jan 27, 2009)

Jonny,

"So then my _*brethren*_..."

*1 Corinthians 11:32 * 32 But when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord so that we will _*not be condemned along with the world*_. 

Same chapter as the 1 Cor. 11:27. Here Paul clearly contrasts the believer from the world. 

*1 Corinthians 10:16-17* 16 Is not the cup of blessing which we bless _*a sharing in the blood of Christ? *_Is not the bread which we break _*a sharing in the body of Christ? *_17 Since there is one bread, _*we who are many are one body*_; for we all partake of the one bread. 

Do unbelievers have a part in the blood of Christ? Do unbelievers have a part in the body of Christ? Are unbelievers part of the body of Christ? Obviously, no.

Lastly, here is what the 1689 LBC says about unworthy participants:



> 1689 LBC 30.8
> 
> All ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table, and cannot, without great sin against him, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto; yea, whosoever shall receive unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment to themselves.
> 
> ( 2 Corinthians 6:14, 15; 1 Corinthians 11:29; Matthew 7:6 )


----------



## OPC'n (Jan 27, 2009)

WSC 96 What is the Lord's Supper? ...is a sacrament, wherein, by giving and receiving the bread and wine, according to Christ's appointment, his death is showed forth; and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporal and carnal manner, but by faith, and partakers of his body and blood, with all his benefits, to their spiritual nourishment, and growth in grace. 1 Cor 11:23-26; 1 Cor 10:14-22

WCF 29.7 Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament, (1) do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine: yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses. 1 Cor 11:28; 1 Cor 10:16

WSC 97 What is required to the worthy receiving of the Lord's supper? It is required of them that would worthily partake of the Lord's supper, that they examine themselves of their knowledge to discern the Lord's body, (1) of their faith to feed upon him, (2) of their repentance, (3) love, (4) and new obedience (5) lest, coming unworthily, they eat and drink judgment to themselves 1 Cor 11:28,29 2 Cor 13:5 1 Cor 11:31 1 Cor 10:16,17 1 Cor 5:7,8 1 Cor 11:28,29


----------



## A.J. (Jan 27, 2009)

saintjonny said:


> So my question is this. On what basis do we not give the Lord's Supper to non-Christians? I have even heard it proposed that if we allow non-Christians to partake, then it's a physical and practical communication of the gospel in that it allows them to see how the gospel creates a community of love and grace in Christ. What do you think?
> 
> (And obviously this is going to be shot out of the water in your mind if you hold a higher view of the Lord's Supper such that it is more than just a symbol of remembrance.)



The sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper are for the _visible church_. They are not to be given to those who are outside this covenant community which is the household of God (Eph. 2:11-12, 2:19; cf. 1 Tim. 3:15). 



> The WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH
> 
> 2. 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,a and of their children*;b and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,c the *house and family of God*,d out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.e
> 
> ...



Baptism is the sign of _initiation_ into this covenant community while the Lord's Supper is the sign of _covenant renewal_. So _baptism is a pre-requisite_ to the receiving of the Lord's Supper. Those baptized as infants should profess their faith _before_ they are allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper. 



> The LARGER CATECHISM
> 
> Q177: Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper differ?
> A177: The sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper differ, in that baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ,[1] and that even to infants;[2] whereas the *Lord's supper is to be administered* often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul,[3] and to confirm our continuance and growth in him,[4] and that *only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves*.[5]
> ...



Unbelievers are _outside_ God's covenant community. They are outside the visible church. So they have no right to receive any of the sacraments. Churches that give the Lord's Supper to unbelievers and/or to the unbaptized, and others who practice paedocommunion (thereby going against the teaching of the Reformed confessions) are not obeying the Bible's instruction on the proper administration of this sacrament.

Giving the Lord's Supper to unbelievers and/or to the unbaptized in our day would be like allowing the uncircumcised and/or idolatrous Gentiles to partake of the Passover in the OT, or giving the Lord's Supper to the unbaptized and/or unbelieving Jews and pagan Gentiles in the NT church. This is a practice that would have caused the Apostles to recoil in horror. From a confessional (and Biblical) perspective, allowing unbelievers and/or unbaptized in our churches should neither be entertained nor practiced in our churches.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 27, 2009)

There's nothing especially "loving" about refusing to draw lines that "separate".

If it be "wrong" to so draw lines, then I suppose "free love" should be the order of the day. Why not reject marriage, if the vows erect a moral barrier to "sharing" your partner? Hey, it's not "loving" of you to keep her/him from me!

Listen, it comes down to this: there as people _inside_ the church, and people _outside_ the church. That is the fundamental barrier. And there are people who are _inside but *ineligible*_ for the Supper (that's what discipline is about), and those who are _inside and *eligible*_. In fact, DISCIPLINE is what LOVE does. If ye are not chastized, then are ye bastards, and not true sons. For the Father disciplines every son that he loves.

Lines are for the protection of all concerned. Elders, like parents, will have their performance examined, as those who must give an account, on the Day of Judgment.


----------



## mvdm (Jan 27, 2009)

This question also lay at the heart of the "communion controversy" in which Jonathan Edwards rejected {rightly} his grandfather Stoddard's view of the sacrament as a "converting ordinance" for the unbeliever. 

There's nothing new under the sun


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 27, 2009)

This is also an extension of the OT practice where only the covenant community participated.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 27, 2009)

I would go further, and posit that based on the available Scriptural evidence, under the Old Covenant only circumcised adult males were invited to the actual memorial table of Passover.

Just another way the New Covenant is better.


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 28, 2009)

I have sometimes studied diagrams that show who could go where in the temple and its surrounding courtyards and have marveled at the wonder of all believers now being able to go into worship and to participate in the means of grace. We are truly blessed.


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 28, 2009)

> _*The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes
> *_*GI Williamson
> p. 283*
> 
> The Lord's Supper is _not_ a means of grace to those who have no grace (I Cor. 11:27-29). The preaching of the Word of God, by contrast, is a means of grace to those who have no grace. No one is required to discern the Lord's body before he hears the gospel. But this requirement proves that the Lord's Supper is not a converting ordinance. It is not a means of effecting union with Christ. It is rather a means of strength and assurance to those who have have union with Christ.





> *Westminster Confession of Faith
> Chapter XXIX
> *
> 
> ...



Not only should non-believers not partake, "disorderly" believers should not.


----------

