# Partaking of Lord's Supper with unbelievers



## Matthew1034 (Dec 28, 2008)

In the early church the saints would meet in the morning for catechizing, singing, and a sermon. Those of the congregation who were baptized and disciples would meet that evening for the Lord's Supper and an agape dinner.


In my church the Lord's Supper is done at the conclusion of the church service. This became a concern to me this week when a lot of new people, or those who only come once or twice per year, came to a Christmas Eve service and Communion was done at the conclusion of the service. I did not partake because I had a conviction that there were unsaved among who partook unknowingly.

My question for the Parsons is this: my pastor gives a disclaimer prior to the Lord's Supper that only for those who belong to Christ and are baptized should participate, and that if you partake unworthily you bring judgment on yourself. Is this as far as the pastor's responsibility goes? It seems that it is said just so its stated and there is not a genuine concern that there may be some who are eating and drinking unworthily.

Is it wrong to eat the Bread and Blood with God-haters? Obviously it is, but is that what is happening when I have the Lord's Supper with unsaved people in the congregation?


----------



## Jan Ziska (Dec 28, 2008)

I guess the first thing is that we can't know the state of grace of people just by looking at them.

The second is that the elders of the church should make an effort to 'fence' the table. The Lord's Supper is a sign of fellowship amongst believers. A place where repentant sinners can come together in brotherhood. It is impossible to do this with people who are only there because their family dragged them along, or who are obviously not repentant sinners.

I would not take communion in a church that made no attempt to fence the table of the Lord.


----------



## Whitefield (Dec 28, 2008)

Matthew1034 said:


> I did not partake because I had a conviction that there were unsaved among who partook unknowingly.



If your participation in the Lord's Supper depends on the faith of others at the table, how can you ever be able to partake of the Lord's Supper again? How can you truly know their status? I don't think you are taking the supper unworthily just because there is someone in the back who is. Remember, Jesus ate with sinners, and there was one at the table in the upper room who partook unworthily. I don't think that tainted the Lord's supper for the others at the table who did take the bread and cup worthily.

I'm interested in finding out what Scripture kept you away from the Lord's table. More specifically, what Scripture convinced you that if you are going to partake worthily but there is some who you think is going to partake unworthily, then you should refuse to partake.


----------



## Herald (Dec 28, 2008)

Whitefield said:


> Matthew1034 said:
> 
> 
> > I did not partake because I had a conviction that there were unsaved among who partook unknowingly.
> ...



Well said. Church leadership may be at fault for not properly fencing the table, but that is no reason to withhold from partaking if your conscience is clear before God.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 28, 2008)

Exactly; see Scottish Presbyterian James Durham's _Concerning Scandal_ for how we do, and do not participate in the sins of others. 


Herald said:


> Whitefield said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew1034 said:
> ...


----------



## KMK (Dec 28, 2008)

Matthew1034 said:


> In the early church the saints would meet in the morning for catechizing, singing, and a sermon. Those of the congregation who were baptized and disciples would meet that evening for the Lord's Supper and an agape dinner.



Can you elaborate on this? Do you have sources? Was this a universal practice? If true, what does it have to do with your question?


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 28, 2008)

If I am understanding your question correctly, it is not your responsibility as a layman to "fence" the Lord's Supper. The church leaders are responsible to do that.

You can get some deeper theological meanings from others here but it seems to me the Lord's Supper ought to be protected from both unbelievers and from disorderly believers. How that is done as a matter of practice is more difficult.

Often in my denomination, it will be stated something to the effect that unbelievers ought to abstain and consider the claims of Christ. Disorderly believers might have a statement to the effect of needing to be a member in good standing of a church where this gospel is preached.

Recently, I brought two people with me to church, one of whom I think is a believer walking in major disobedience (completely out of fellowship for a long time), the other may not be a believer at all. Before the Lord's Supper, I prayed they would not partake. Amazingly, they asked me if they should and I advised them not to and reminded them communion was a very serious thing and our church interprets this as being an active member of an evangelical church (which these two individuals were not).

Now, as a layman, I did not enforce the "fencing" but did pray they would carefully consider what Christ commands regarding this and respectfully told my guests. This was briefly reinforced by the minister's charge so it worked well. It also engendered a good multi-lateral discussion afterwards about the sacraments, the visible church, etc.

I've grown in recent times to understand the great benefit and nature of the Lord's Supper. It's not something to "fool with." It imparts real grace and offers real strengthening of faith. But it is not my duty to judge the hearts of others partaking in it nor abstain upon such a pretense.

Good question, though, you are taking great care in approaching the Lord's Supper.


----------



## Hippo (Dec 28, 2008)

> Is it wrong to eat the Bread and Blood with God-haters? Obviously it is



In all but the most extreme situations I do not think that this is obvious.


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Dec 28, 2008)

They eat and drink condemnation to themselves not to you. Paul warned those who were eating of the supper falsely not those who ate truly with them.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 28, 2008)

What if you KNOW the Pastor is not a believer?


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 28, 2008)

The fact of unbelievers eating at table with you is not mere theoretical conjecture, but in most cases, I suspect, a FACT. There is no need (in fact I think it's quite improper) to not partake because of suspicions that there might be non-Christians partaking. There probably are, even in the purest of churches. Satan has sown his tares far and wide. 

As has already been pointed out, if you are steadfast against taking the Supper when unbelievers are present, then you can probably never actually take it.

Your conscience needn't be troubled by this, Matthew. Take up the issue of fencing with the elders, but when the Supper is offered, partake as Christ commanded.

-----Added 12/28/2008 at 03:15:48 EST-----



PuritanBouncer said:


> What if you KNOW the Pastor is not a believer?



The same issue was raised in the early church regarding baptism. If the baptisms were valid despite the priest's being an unbeliever, why not the Supper?


----------



## Whitefield (Dec 28, 2008)

PuritanBouncer said:


> What if you KNOW the Pastor is not a believer?



I wouldn't be a member in that church to begin with, so I wouldn't be in a situation where I would receive the elements of the Lord's Supper from him.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 28, 2008)

Whitefield said:


> PuritanBouncer said:
> 
> 
> > What if you KNOW the Pastor is not a believer?
> ...



I worked 12 years at a place where the chapel was a UCC Church with a Pastor that was not a believer. I never took the supper there and my kids always asked me why. Many other professing Christians did though. I just could never make myself.


----------



## Hamalas (Dec 28, 2008)

I would have to agree with what has already been said, another person's sin does not condemn you. However, I think you do bring up some good questions about how exactly we should fence the table. In every church that I have been in the Pastor has given a verbal explenation to caution unrepentant sinners from participating in the Supper. I'm not convinced that this is enough though. It has been the practice amoung Presybterians for centuries to examine congregants BEFORE they partake. Here are some good articles on this subject:
Fencing of the Table
Fencing the Lord's Table
On A More Adequate Fencing of the Lord's Table


----------



## Wannabee (Dec 28, 2008)

You might consider this thread as well.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/1-cor-11-27-29-a-40142/


----------



## Matthew1034 (Dec 28, 2008)

Whitefield said:


> Matthew1034 said:
> 
> 
> > I did not partake because I had a conviction that there were unsaved among who partook unknowingly.
> ...



The Scripture that kept me away from the Lord's table is Genesis 4:9.



> Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?"
> He said, "I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?"



Specifically, the man sitting to my left was a homeless man who I befriended and have been bringing to church and ministering to. He believes in God, and I see God working on his soul, but he had been drinking that week, maybe even up to hours before the service (sad about the holidays, understandably).

Anyway, I had been praying throughout the service for how to go about saying something, or if I even should. 10 or so minutes before the Supper, the Genesis 4:9 passage came to mind. Basically, I thought, if I have a conviction that someone who has been drinking because of depression shouldn't partake, I ought to at least say something, not just let him go ahead unknowingly.

So, I whispered to him, "Don't take this if you don't understand why its done." He said, "I know what it is, the bread is the body, the juice is the blood. Its just a ritual." When he said this, I thought about all the new comers or people who only come once or twice a year, and that they may think the same thing, or do it because everyone else is... either way, my Lord's body and blood are not just a ritual. I could not in good conscience partake with the man sitting next to me out of fellowship with God, let alone the once-a-year's.

I would not have partaken worthily because it would not have been done out of faith. (Romans 14:23) Afterward I understood why the early church did the Supper separately, because only those who are discipled can partake worthily. If my friend had been catechized and discipled, he would know that the Bread and Blood are not merely ritualistic elements. And I will eat lunch or dinner with sinners any day, and I do, but the Lord's supper is not common bread and the wine is not common drink.

Although Judas was at the Last Supper, he was still a disciple and although he partook unworthily this does not grant us the liberty to lower the standards of those who partake. And although it is true that we cannot know the state of grace people are in, we can be assured that we are not dispensing the Supper carelessly if we offer it only to those who are baptized and discipled.

I consider a single-sentence generic warning about eating unworthily 30 seconds before the Supper is dispensed to be careless and Spirit-less, for there is no genuine concern if they eat unworthily. If there was genuine concern, it would not be offered to just anyone who walks in the door, it would be separated and dispensed to the saints.




KMK said:


> Matthew1034 said:
> 
> 
> > In the early church the saints would meet in the morning for catechizing, singing, and a sermon. Those of the congregation who were baptized and disciples would meet that evening for the Lord's Supper and an agape dinner.
> ...



I am not learned on this, but my source is Reformed Theological Seminary's Dr. Frank A. James III teaching History of Christianity I - podcast named "Introduction, Early Church Life, and Apostolic Fathers - 02" specifically from 8:25 to 14:50.

This can be downloaded from iTunes at RTS on iTunes U

Its relevant to my question because it seems that this was the early church's way of fencing the Lord's table. The last three paragraphs of my reply above give detail.

If we eat the Supper with the discipled and baptized, we are eating with believers as far as we know. If we eat mingled with blatant unregenerates, we are eating with God-haters. It just seems that separating the Lord's Supper from the sermon and song service is how the Supper is supposed to be. We serve a God of order. 



Hippo said:


> > Is it wrong to eat the Bread and Blood with God-haters? Obviously it is
> 
> 
> 
> In all but the most extreme situations I do not think that this is obvious.



Isn't it obvious if it is offered to anyone who walks in the door??


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 28, 2008)

> Matthew1034
> Puritanboard Freshman
> 
> My question for the Parsons is this: *my pastor gives a disclaimer prior to the Lord's Supper that only for those who belong to Christ and are baptized should participate, and that if you partake unworthily you bring judgment on yourself*. Is this as far as the pastor's responsibility goes? It seems that it is said just so its stated and there is not a genuine concern that there may be some who are eating and drinking unworthily.



As far as you know this fellow you brought to church, was he disobeying the instructions from the pulpit (i.e. he was not a Christian and was not baptized), including disregarding the warning that Christ Himself will judge those who partake unworthily?


----------



## Hamalas (Dec 28, 2008)

Maybe God is bringing this up in your life so that you can present this problem to the session? Your concern for your brothers is admirable, but the real problem is with an insufficient fencing of the table. Maybe you should tell the elders what you have been telling us?


----------



## Matthew1034 (Dec 28, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> > Matthew1034
> > Puritanboard Freshman
> >
> > My question for the Parsons is this: *my pastor gives a disclaimer prior to the Lord's Supper that only for those who belong to Christ and are baptized should participate, and that if you partake unworthily you bring judgment on yourself*. Is this as far as the pastor's responsibility goes? It seems that it is said just so its stated and there is not a genuine concern that there may be some who are eating and drinking unworthily.
> ...



Scott, He confesses belief in Jesus as his Savior and was sprinkled when he was younger in a Methodist church. But I'd say his decision neglected the warning of judgment from Christ-- he had been depressed and drinking, definitely not in fellowship with God.

Any thoughts, sir?



Hamalas said:


> Maybe God is bringing this up in your life so that you can present this problem to the session? Your concern for your brothers is admirable, but the real problem is with an insufficient fencing of the table. Maybe you should tell the elders what you have been telling us?



Ben, I agree on both fronts - since my church is not reformed (or confessional) I must go about this in the most careful way as I do not want to offend the presbyters out of pure zeal - the advice of this board is a great aid to me in articulating my defense. Thank you.


----------



## PresbyDane (Dec 28, 2008)

The sacraments were given by God they cannot be destroyed or made less by man.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 28, 2008)

Originally Posted by Scott1 View Post
Quote:



> Matthew1034
> Puritanboard Freshman
> 
> My question for the Parsons is this: my pastor gives a disclaimer prior to the Lord's Supper that only for those who belong to Christ and are baptized should participate, and that if you partake unworthily you bring judgment on yourself. Is this as far as the pastor's responsibility goes? It seems that it is said just so its stated and there is not a genuine concern that there may be some who are eating and drinking unworthily.
> ...


I've wondered about this myself.

It seems your friend was compliant with the church authority (the minister) and that your minister (elder, pastor) makes a good faith effort to fence the table from unbelievers.

The trickier part (and less clear to me biblically) is the case of the "disorderly believer." You might find GI Williamson's book, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes (chapters on the sacraments and The Lord's Supper) helpful. I realize you subscribe to the London Baptist Confession and you have a high view of the sacraments. I think Mr. Williamson does a good job explaining all this from a biblically high view of the Lord's Supper- no more and no less than Scripture requires.

It seems at a minimum, the Lord's Table should be verbally fenced to protect from:

1) unbelievers
2) believers under Lord' Supper suspension church discipline
3) people who are joined to non-Christian communions (e.g. groups that do not hold the Gospel)

I'm less sure biblically about a fourth category, because it is harder to define and to simply explain as the sacrament is administered,

4) believers who are in open disobedience (but not under discipline)

But it seems a phrase like, "If you are a member in good standing of an evangelical church... then this Table is for you," is a good faith try at it. In theory, chronic alcoholism by someone who has withdrawn from church fellowship for an extended time would be encompassed by that statement.

It's also important to keep in mind the Lord's Table is for the weak Christian. It actually builds faith and is meant to help. We don't want to over-qualify it or discourage people from the generous provision of faith-strengthening our Lord provides through it.

On top of that, you did the right thing by speaking to this fellow about the requirements. You have nothing to regret, so don't be too hard on yourself. You might ask your church leaders about a general fencing for disobedient believers, it might not be in their doctrine or be practical though. It's very biblical to, in a good spirit, communicate this, and trust God to resolve it in your heart and mind.

Interestingly, in the Scottish Covenanter tradition, I am told every person had to get a "token" by the elders to take the Lord's Supper. Only those evaluated and given tokens were permitted to partake. (Now that's a high view)!


----------



## Whitefield (Dec 28, 2008)

I'm sorry, but I'm still waiting for scripture which instructs me to refuse to go to the Lord's Table if I suspect there is one going there who is partaking unworthily.


----------



## Matthew1034 (Dec 28, 2008)

Whitefield said:


> I'm sorry, but I'm still waiting for scripture which instructs me to refuse to go to the Lord's Table if I suspect there is one going there who is partaking unworthily.



1 Corinthians 11:28-32


> But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged.



Is partaking with known unregenerates and backslidden believers considered conduct and fellowship worthy of the Lord's body? What fellowship does righteousness have with lawlessness? What communion has light with darkness?

I think that in resting on the claim that we cannot know who is saved and who isn't and thus neglect to enforce the standards in Scripture in distributing the Elements is a poor, lazy, and unconvincing answer to these questions.

Why wouldn't a believer want to eat the Lord's Supper with those under Christ's yoke? Why would a believer be content with fellowshiping with unbelievers?

1 Corinthians 11:17-20


> Now in giving these instructions I do not praise you, *since you come together not for the better but for the worse*. For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you. *Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper.*



It seems that Paul doesn't even consider the dinner to be the Lord's Supper when the conduct is inappropriate.


----------



## KMK (Dec 28, 2008)

Matthew1034 said:


> I am not learned on this, but my source is Reformed Theological Seminary's Dr. Frank A. James III teaching History of Christianity I - podcast named "Introduction, Early Church Life, and Apostolic Fathers - 02" specifically from 8:25 to 14:50.
> 
> This can be downloaded from iTunes at RTS on iTunes U



Thanks for the link. I really like Prof James!



Matthew1034 said:


> Its relevant to my question because it seems that this was the early church's way of fencing the Lord's table. The last three paragraphs of my reply above give detail.
> 
> If we eat the Supper with the discipled and baptized, we are eating with believers as far as we know. If we eat mingled with blatant unregenerates, we are eating with God-haters. It just seems that separating the Lord's Supper from the sermon and song service is how the Supper is supposed to be. We serve a God of order.



It sounds like you have a problem with 'open' communion as do many people. However, if you are not an elder in the church it is really not your burden to bear. I would talk to the elders about your questions/concerns and let them do their job. In the meantime, partake of the Supper with a clear conscience because 'whom' the Supper is to be distributed is not your call.


----------



## Matthew1034 (Dec 28, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> Originally Posted by Scott1 View Post
> Quote:
> 
> 
> ...



Scott, these comments are very helpful -- I sure do not want to discourage a believer from the Lord's Table, and I certainly want to rather encourage faithful observance and obedience. I know this will boil down to speaking with the church leaders about fencing, their convictions, etc. Its new to me, so I'm sure the Lord has raised the issue for our good as a church!

The only thing that doesn't make much sense to me is why Communion is not separated from the regular service. It seems that it would be a very simple solution to verbal fencing and would encourage the believer's growth in further attendence and learning. The Scottish Covenenter's token method you mentioned is what I have in mind in a way, to make sure those who partake understand what they are doing.

Thank you, sir!



KMK said:


> Matthew1034 said:
> 
> 
> > I am not learned on this, but my source is Reformed Theological Seminary's Dr. Frank A. James III teaching History of Christianity I - podcast named "Introduction, Early Church Life, and Apostolic Fathers - 02" specifically from 8:25 to 14:50.
> ...



I listened to almost 5 hours of Prof. James' lectures during work one day -- good stuff!

Ken, your comment about these things being the elder's responsibility has given me some peace, thank you!

-----Added 12/28/2008 at 10:03:15 EST-----



toddpedlar said:


> The fact of unbelievers eating at table with you is not mere theoretical conjecture, but in most cases, I suspect, a FACT. There is no need (in fact I think it's quite improper) to not partake because of suspicions that there might be non-Christians partaking. There probably are, even in the purest of churches. Satan has sown his tares far and wide.
> 
> As has already been pointed out, if you are steadfast against taking the Supper when unbelievers are present, then you can probably never actually take it.
> 
> Your conscience needn't be troubled by this, Matthew. Take up the issue of fencing with the elders, but when the Supper is offered, partake as Christ commanded.



Thank you, Todd -- its not so much that I'm against taking it when unbelievers are present, I'm against taking it when it is offered to anyone who walks in (despite a verbal warning) as if it were nothing special. I don't impose those intentions on my Pastor or elders, but it as I saw it, it is not held exclusive to the church when it is that 'open.'

And I will let my elders know and they will surely comfort me with their wisdom, but it seems I just need confirmation that my church holds the sacrament in high regard, the believers in higher regard, and the Lord's commands in the highest regards along with a humble respect and agape love for the unsaved.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 28, 2008)

Brother, I am very concearned about this.

You disobeyed Christs command, because you suspected that the guy sitting next to you has a hard life & had a drink that week (or even several)?

On so many levels this is troubling. As has been ably pointed out above you misunderstand your role as a member to "Fence the Table". In short you don't have one.

Second you seem to misunderstand your DUTY to partake. It is called a means of grace for a reason, it is not a "proof" of your perfection in Christ it is a means of this grace.

Next, you objection was based on what he *might* have done? (leaving aside totally the issue of would his drinking have been sinfull)

In your retelling of the events this man both professes Christ & has the sign of baptism. He heard the words of instruction, with a warning, was challenged by you, and gave a reply that you found to reflect a deficiently orthodox view.

Guess what brother, I would bet that 90+% of the saints can not give a good or sound reply if asked to explain this, or many other doctrines.

PRAISE GOD that our salvation depends on the Grace of God alone, and not our ability to pass a theology exam. If it were not so not one of us would be saved.

So next time the bread & wine are passed, see them for what they are, not something you are wothy of because you got 100% on your systematics quiz. That is really, & truely, yet spiritualy, the very body & blood of Christ that was broken & shed for YOU. Recieve it with thanksgiving. It is the Grace of God for you.

Pax.


----------



## PastorTim (Dec 28, 2008)

what about the elders knowing that someone should not but allow it anyway?


----------



## Matthew1034 (Dec 29, 2008)

Kevin said:


> Brother, I am very concearned about this.



Your concern and rubuke are overwhelmingly appreciated and accepted.




> You disobeyed Christs command, because you suspected that the guy sitting next to you has a hard life & had a drink that week (or even several)?





> Next, you objection was based on what he *might* have done? (leaving aside totally the issue of would his drinking have been sinfull)



It it is foolish, however, to assume my conviction is substanceless or ungodly and was a catalyst for disobedience. The Lord led me to this man and I'm intimately interested in his life and ministering to him and his needs and seeing Christ being formed in him. I love this man. 

When I met him he had been an alcoholic for over a year, had stopped cold-turkey for a few months, and has had a rough week because of the holidays and his situation and likely drank to drown the sorrow. His skin smelled like alcohol and he admitted that he had been stuggling with alcohol because of the times. This is not some Joe-schmoe who I am judging based on appearances. I care about this guys life, spiritual and physical.

In fact, if I suspect that this brother in Christ is stuggling with the sin of drunkenness (or any sin), and do nothing even though the Lord has put me in his life as means of ministering and teaching, how grevious of a sin is this! We are commanded to feed the flock; ignoring sin is the same as running from them when the wolves come.




> On so many levels this is troubling. As has been ably pointed out above you misunderstand your role as a member to "Fence the Table". In short you don't have one.





> Second you seem to misunderstand your DUTY to partake. It is called a means of grace for a reason, it is not a "proof" of your perfection in Christ it is a means of this grace.





> In your retelling of the events this man both professes Christ & has the sign of baptism. He heard the words of instruction, with a warning, was challenged by you, and gave a reply that you found to reflect a deficiently orthodox view.





> Guess what brother, I would bet that 90+% of the saints can not give a good or sound reply if asked to explain this, or many other doctrines.



It has been made clear that the responsibilty of fencing the table lies in the hands of the clergy, as well as the method and such are accountable. This is fair and orderly. But, it is unfair to think that a believer's convictions about the welfare of men's souls have no place in the church's practices.

My role as a member to fence the table is non-existent authoritatively, I am not an elder, I hold no office to say how it should be done. But, if by this is meant that I should sit down, shut up, and eat my bread without regard of the good of my neighbor, why am I really taking it? Aren't I showing my fellowship with Christ? Isn't it a representation of the spiritual growth and nourishment of us as believers in Him, sharing it together? Doesn't it impart grace or judgment? How repugnant it is, then, to think that I can do this in good conscience next to someone who is doing it just do it because its a ritual, and say nothing! Especially doing it because its my duty! This would be white-washed legalism.

And I've tried to make it clear that it is not my intention to usurp the authority of what is done with the elements, rather I am sharing this situation with fellowmen and earnestly desiring their wisdom and advice so that I can approach my church with a well-articulated apologia, not a bunch of sentences and accuasations out of a raw zeal. Nothing more, I seek no honor from any man in my questions and concerns and convictions. I seek to glorify Christ in rejoicing with the truth, not just seemingly satisfying him with unquestioning obedience to religious practices, lodged comfortably in a pew while my brothers perish.





> PRAISE GOD that our salvation depends on the Grace of God alone, and not our ability to pass a theology exam. If it were not so not one of us would be saved.





> So next time the bread & wine are passed, see them for what they are, not something you are wothy of because you got 100% on your systematics quiz. That is really, & truely, yet spiritualy, the very body & blood of Christ that was broken & shed for YOU. Recieve it with thanksgiving. It is the Grace of God for you.



Amen! And praise the Lord that our salvation does not depend upon properly partaking the elements. These are spiritual matters, sir. An atheist could pass a theology exam, but we compare spiritual things with spiritual. And if the Bread and Wine are outward symbols of an inward spiritual reality, then these are matters most worthy of concern and conversation, especially considering it involves the well-being (or judgment) of our brothers, and even more especially because of the elements' representation of our Lord's body.


I am not above reproach.
eirene kai agape


----------



## Hamalas (Dec 29, 2008)

I think one thing that we can all agree on is to pray for you in this situation, and to praise God for how he is using you to minister in this other man's life! We "Theo-geeks" are all to often derided as talking about theology and not living it. Thanks for being concerned with godly worship AND godly conduct.


----------



## Whitefield (Dec 29, 2008)

Matthew1034 said:


> I did not partake because I had a conviction that there were unsaved among who partook unknowingly.



Matthew,

I commend you for your concern for the man in question. I'm sure you are a blessing (albeit also a good thorn) for him. I also commend you for your concern about everything being done in proper order in the Lord's Supper. In my response to you I was not addressing your concern about being your brother's keeper, nor was I questioning your concern about fencing the table. My concern was a pastoral concern about why you refused to partake. I have heard over the years, "Pastor, I'm not taking the Lord's Supper today because I'm a sinner." I've also heard (once or twice) "I'm taking the Lord's Supper because I haven't sinned this week." But, I've never heard "Pastor, I'm not taking the Lord's Supper this week, because the guy sitting next to me is a sinner." That's a new one to me, and it concerns me because I hear in it a possible echo of Luke 18:9-14.

In Christian Love,
Lance


----------



## Kevin (Dec 29, 2008)

Matt, I am encouraged by your concern for this man. I pray that he will grow in his faith & that you may have the blessing of seeing it.


----------



## Matthew1034 (Dec 29, 2008)

Whitefield said:


> Matthew1034 said:
> 
> 
> > I did not partake because I had a conviction that there were unsaved among who partook unknowingly.
> ...



Lance, in a way the feedback on this board to my thoughts are positively overwhelming - many here are Reverends and Pastors and Elders, and their knowledge is far above mine; their words are priceless and perspectives to be respected. I don't want to be a nag at church and cause grief to those above me and neither do I want to do that here! Its a great thing to talk about our Lord and all this stuff and I'm grateful to have the feedback here. So thank you!!! 

Thanks for mentioned the parable in Luke, it is something to add to my thoughts.



Kevin said:


> Matt, I am encouraged by your concern for this man. I pray that he will grow in his faith & that you may have the blessing of seeing it.



Thank you for your prayer, Kevin - we both thank you.  And I apologize if my words at face value seem to elevate my concerns over yours, I only mean to state the circumstances more accurately so its clear that I am somewhat accountable for this man's soul.

You have been honest and your thoughts and concerns are very helpful, thank you Kevin.


----------

