# Taking Communion when visiting a church



## satz

Some thing I would appreciate your opinions on. 

If you are visiting a church and they are having the Lord's Supper, do you partake?

Is partaking like this inconsistent with a closed communion position?

Would you have to be in 100% doctrinal agreement with the church you are visiting to partake?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

satz said:


> Some thing I would appreciate your opinions on.
> 
> If you are visiting a church and they are having the Lord's Supper, do you partake?
> 
> Is partaking like this inconsistent with a closed communion position?
> 
> Would you have to be in 100% doctrinal agreement with the church you are visiting to partake?



I don't believe you need to be in 100% agreement. WCF 29 can be found here: http://www.temeculaopc.org/wcf/wcf29.htm

The Chapter doesn't really speak as much of the people you're celebrating it with as to the meaning of the Sacrament itself independent of the error that singular individuals in attendance may be ascribing to it.

I believe a person duly ordained to administer the Sacrament allows me to partake. I don't believe the faith of that minister or the faith of those around me affects what God is doing in connection with the Sacrament if I am worthily receiving it.

I would only celebrate the Sacrament among a Christian body.


----------



## satz

Thanks Rich.

Hope you don't mind me asking something else.

I recall from your other posts (and your sig) you are currently attending a baptist church while you yourself are a fairly staunch presbyterian. I am not sure if you ever mentioned if you are a member there, but it seems for the time being that is your church 'base'. Does the fact that you are attending there have anything to do with your taking the Supper there? Ie if you were only visiting a similar church and they served communion would you partake?


----------



## ADKing

satz said:


> Some thing I would appreciate your opinions on.
> 
> If you are visiting a church and they are having the Lord's Supper, do you partake?
> 
> Is partaking like this inconsistent with a closed communion position?
> 
> Would you have to be in 100% doctrinal agreement with the church you are visiting to partake?



If a church holds _closed_ communion you will not be invited to partake unless you are a member of the congregation. In our church a visitor would have to be examined as to his knowledge and life prior to being admitted to the table (usually the week before or on a Saturday night). 

Personally, I would say that if you show up to a church as a guest and you did not know they were celebrating communion it would be wise to refrain whatever their policy is. It is not practical or realistic to expect that you can adequately prepare yourself for the sacrament 10 minutes before a service starts


----------



## jaybird0827

Consider the following story.

This lady showed up as a visitor in a congregation that practices examination of non-members prior to admitting them to the Lord's table.

She was wearing this hugh brooch that read "I love Jesus". She was thrilled to learn that communion was scheduled on that particular Lord's Day.

The Session proceeded to examine her prior to the service. When asked, "Are you a sinner?" her instant reply was "Oh I haven't sinned in years!". The Pastor responded, "This table is for sinners. By you're own testimony you are excluded." End of conversation.

True story.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

satz said:


> Thanks Rich.
> 
> Hope you don't mind me asking something else.
> 
> I recall from your other posts (and your sig) you are currently attending a baptist church while you yourself are a fairly staunch presbyterian. I am not sure if you ever mentioned if you are a member there, but it seems for the time being that is your church 'base'. Does the fact that you are attending there have anything to do with your taking the Supper there? Ie if you were only visiting a similar church and they served communion would you partake?



Yes, I would celebrate with the congregation I attend even if I was not a member (which I am). I would not force myself upon a congregation who has a closed table. It is up to the Elders of a Church to guard the table and provided I have met the requirements of the Church who is administering the Sacrament, and I am among believers, I will commune with those who profess Christ.


----------



## satz

Thanks everyone.

With regards to the question about closed communion, what I was asking is if your home church practices closed communion and you visited a church that practiced open or close communion, would you be inconsistent to partake.


----------



## Theoretical

jaybird0827 said:


> Consider the following story.
> 
> This lady showed up as a visitor in a congregation that practices examination of non-members prior to admitting them to the Lord's table.
> 
> She was wearing this hugh brooch that read "I love Jesus". She was thrilled to learn that communion was scheduled on that particular Lord's Day.
> 
> The Session proceeded to examine her prior to the service. When asked, "Are you a sinner?" her instant reply was "Oh I haven't sinned in years!". The Pastor responded, "This table is for sinners. By you're own testimony you are excluded." End of conversation.
> 
> True story.


 Now that must have been quite a shocker for her. Hopefully, it was a sobering experience.


----------



## jaybird0827

Theoretical said:


> Now that must have been quite a shocker for her. Hopefully, it was a sobering experience.


 
 To my knowledge she never returned.


----------



## Herald

satz said:


> Some thing I would appreciate your opinions on.
> 
> If you are visiting a church and they are having the Lord's Supper, do you partake?
> 
> Is partaking like this inconsistent with a closed communion position?
> 
> Would you have to be in 100% doctrinal agreement with the church you are visiting to partake?



Communion is a sacrament of Christ's church. If you are visiting a Christian church, and they have open communion, then partake. If they practice closed communion, then that is an issue for that church to deal with.


----------



## fredtgreco

Excellent way to deal with someone who is confused (at least) or ignorant of the gospel. Insult them within 2 minutes, and don't offer instruction, the gospel or correction. That way she will leave twice the son of hell as when she came in.

Did someone hand her a copy of the Larger Catechism on her way out?



jaybird0827 said:


> To my knowledge she never returned.





Theoretical said:


> Now that must have been quite a shocker for her. Hopefully, it was a sobering experience.





jaybird0827 said:


> Consider the following story.
> 
> This lady showed up as a visitor in a congregation that practices examination of non-members prior to admitting them to the Lord's table.
> 
> She was wearing this hugh brooch that read "I love Jesus". She was thrilled to learn that communion was scheduled on that particular Lord's Day.
> 
> The Session proceeded to examine her prior to the service. When asked, "Are you a sinner?" her instant reply was "Oh I haven't sinned in years!". The Pastor responded, "This table is for sinners. By you're own testimony you are excluded." End of conversation.
> 
> True story.


----------



## beej6

satz said:


> Some thing I would appreciate your opinions on.
> 
> If you are visiting a church and they are having the Lord's Supper, do you partake?
> 
> Is partaking like this inconsistent with a closed communion position?
> 
> Would you have to be in 100% doctrinal agreement with the church you are visiting to partake?



For the first question, as others have alluded to, the church would have to be a sound Christian church. If one wasn't sure about that from the content of the worship service leading up to the Lord's Supper, it may be wise to refrain from partaking.

If one is used to a 'closed' communion and finds oneself in a more open communion, conscience could dictate whether one would be comfortable with that.

If I had to be in 100% doctrinal agreement with any church I was going to partake communion in, I might not ever celebrate it  Seriously, that's one reason why confessionalism is also so important. I'm comfortable in any confessional Reformed church whether Westminster or Three Forms of Unity.


----------



## beej6

ADKing said:


> <snip>
> Personally, I would say that if you show up to a church as a guest and you did not know they were celebrating communion it would be wise to refrain whatever their policy is. It is not practical or realistic to expect that you can adequately prepare yourself for the sacrament 10 minutes before a service starts



Rev. King, allow me to disagree with you here. The worship service, properly done, should help me to understand (again!) that I am a sinner in need of a Savior. If so, I see no bar to visiting a church service and celebrating the Lord's Supper as a guest. Now, if a service *started* with the Lord's Supper (in theory, I've never seen or heard of that being done!), I'd refrain in any case because it was foreign to me... and I'd agree with you that that's improper...


----------



## KMK

satz said:


> Some thing I would appreciate your opinions on.
> 
> If you are visiting a church and they are having the Lord's Supper, do you partake?
> 
> Is partaking like this inconsistent with a closed communion position?
> 
> Would you have to be in 100% doctrinal agreement with the church you are visiting to partake?



One of the foundational principles behind 'closed' communion is that of protecting the communicants from sharing the sacrificial meal with fornicators, covetous, idolators etc. (1 Cor 5). Therefore, if you believe in 'closed' communion you probably would not want to share the Lord's Supper with an 'open' church because you would have no idea who you were partaking with. If my reasoning is flawed maybe someone could point that out for me.


----------



## SRoper

I'm not so sure closed communion is about avoiding communing with fornicators and idolaters, rather it's protecting said fornicators and idolaters for their own good.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Durham’s arguments against refraining from the Lord's Supper over the sins or estate of others are these (See the full treatment in James Durham, _A Treatise Concerning Scandal,_ part two, chapter four, “When Church Officers are Defective in Their Duty” (Naphtali Press, 1990] 114-125]): 

*C**ONCERNING **W**HETHER **T**HE **O**RDINANCES **O**F **C**HRIST **B**E **A**NY **W**AY*
*P**OLLUTED **B**Y **C**ORRUPT **F**ELLOW **W**ORSHIPPERS**.*
But yet two things are to be satisfied. 1. It may be said, .But are not the
ordinances of Christ someway polluted by the unworthiness of such
scandalous partakers? And if so, can polluted ordinances be partaken of
without sin?. ANSWER. We may consider polluting of ordinances in a
threefold sense. (1.) An ordinance may be said to be polluted, when the
essentials and substantials thereof are corrupted, so as indeed it ceases to
be an ordinance of Jesus Christ. Thus the Mass in Popery is a fearful
abomination and a corruption of the sacrament. In this respect the
ordinance (if it may be called an ordinance after that, for indeed it is not an
ordinance of Christ) is polluted. This may be many ways fallen into, and
communion in this is indeed sinful and cannot but be so.
(2.) An ordinance may be said to be polluted when it is irreverently and
profanely abused, though essentials be kept. Thus the Lord.s Sabbath may
be polluted, which yet is holy in itself. So was the Table of the Lord
polluted (_[FONT=&quot]Mal. 1[/FONT]_). And in this sense the sacrament of the Lord.s Supper
was indeed polluted by the Corinthians (_[FONT=&quot]1 Cor. 11[/FONT]_), when some came
drunk or otherways irreverently to the holy ordinances. In this respect an
ordinance may be said to be polluted to him that so goes about it, because
to the unclean all things are unclean. But it is not polluted in itself, nor to
any other that examine themselves, as the former instance clears, because
that pollution comes from nothing in the ordinance (it being in its
essentials complete), but arises from the sinfulness of such and such

23 Cotton, _[FONT=&quot]Of the Holiness of Church-Members, [/FONT]_p. 2.
*
*
persons, and therefore must be commensurable with them.
(3.) An ordinance may be said to be polluted upon this extrinsic
consideration, to wit, when by some circumstance in it, or miscarriage of
those that are about it, it is made common, and so wants that luster and
honorableness that it ought to have. By such a fault the ordinance is made
obnoxious to contempt, and is despised by others, contrary to the Lord.s
allowance. Thus priests of old made the offerings of the Lord vile and
contemptible; which was not by corrupting them in essentials, nor making
them cease to be ordinances, but by their miscarriages and corrupt
irreverent way of going about them, they laid that stumbling block before
others, to make them account these ordinances contemptible.
This may be diverse ways fallen into, as [1.], when the officer, or minister,
has a profane carnal carriage, so he makes the ordinance of the ministry,
and every other ordinance vile in this sense. Thus, if an elder or any others
should take on them to admonish while they are in drunkenness or
passion, or such like, they do pollute that admonition; yet still these
ordinances are ordinances, and that admonition an admonition.
[2.] It is fallen into when an officer indiscreetly and indifferently
administrates ordinances to precious and vile, as if they were common
things. Thus a reproof may be polluted when a manifest known condemner
is reproved, because, so a pearl is cast before swine, which is derogatory
to the excellency thereof. Thus a minister may profane or pollute the most
excellent promises or consolations of the Word, when without discretion
he applies the same indifferently, or without making difference between
the tender and untender and profane, yea, even between the hypocrites and
the truly godly. This is not to divide the Word of God aright, and is indeed
that which the Lord mainly accounts to be _[FONT=&quot]Not separating the precious[/FONT]_
_[FONT=&quot]from the vile, [/FONT]_when peace is spoken to them to whom he never spoke it.
This is also committed when grossly scandalous persons are permitted,
without the exercise of discipline upon them, to live in the church, or are
admitted to sacraments; because so God.s institution is wronged, and the
luster thereof is lessened, and men are induced to think less thereof.
[3.] This may be also by the irreverent manner of going about them, when
*
*it is without that due reverence and gravity that ought to be in his worship.
Thus one may make the Word and Sacrament to be in a great part
ridiculous. And so suppose, that at the sacrament of the Supper, in the
same congregation, some should be communicating at one place, some at
another, some should be palpably talking of other things, some
miscarrying by drunkenness, etc., as it.s clear was in the Church of
Corinth. All those may be said to pollute the ordinances, as they derogate
from their weight and authority and miscarry in the administration of
them, and are ready to breed irreverence and contempt in others where the
Lord.s body in the Supper, or the end of his institution in other ordinances,
is not discerned and observed. Yet all these do not pollute the ordinance in
itself, or make it to be no ordinance, nor pollute it to any[one] that
reverently partakes of the same, and does not stumble upon the block that
is laid before him. Because a hearer that was suitably qualified, might
comfortably receive and feed upon a sweet promise, even when it might
be extended in its application beyond the Lord.s allowance; yet that does
not alter the nature thereof to him. So may worthy communicants that
have examined themselves, and discern the Lord.s body partake of that
sacrament with his approbation, and to their own comfort, because they
might discern him and by that come to get the right impression of the
ordinances, although many blocks where lying in their way. For, it is not
other.s casting of snares before them, but their stumbling at them, that
pollutes the ordinance to them. Hence we see that though all these were in
the Church of Corinth, so that there was neither reverence in the manner,
nor discretion in respect to the receivers (for, some came drunken, and
some came and waited not on others; some came hungry, and others full),
yet was it still the sacrament of the Lord.s Supper, and unpolluted to those
who by examining of themselves and discerning of his body (which others
failed in) did reverently and duly partake of the same.
Besides these ways of pollution mentioned, we cannot conceive of any
other (for now legal and ceremonial pollution, such as was by touching a
dead body, etc., and was opposite to ceremonial holiness, is not in this
case to be mentioned), yet we see the first cannot be alleged here, and
none of the other two ought to scare tender persons from the ordinances of
Jesus Christ.

If it is said, that communicating in such a case, seems to approve such an
admission, and to confirm those in some good opinion of themselves who
are admitted, and so there is a necessity of abstaining, though not upon the
account that the ordinances are polluted, yet for preventing the foresaid
offense, which might make us guilty. ANSWER. If weight be laid upon
offense, we make no question but it will sway to the other side. Oh what
offense has this way given to the church of Christ! How has it hardened
those that had prejudice at religion? How has it opened the mouths of such
as lie in wait for something of this kind? How has it grieved and weighted
others? How has it made the work of reformation, profession of holiness,
exercise of discipline, etc., to stink to many, and so to be loaded with
reproaches, as has marred much that access to keep the ordinances
unpolluted in the former respect, which otherwise might have been? Is not
reverent and exemplary partaking of the ordinances at such a time, a more
edifying and convincing testimony against such untenderness, than by
withdrawing to give a new offense? The Lord.s precept in such a case, _[FONT=&quot]Let[/FONT]_
_[FONT=&quot]a man examine himself, and so let him eat, [/FONT]_does not leave the thing
indifferent upon that ground, and therefore that objection is not here to
have place, as the grounds formerly laid down evince. For we are not to be
wise or holy beyond what the Lord has commanded.


----------



## KMK

Very interesting...  

That is a great deal to ponder. I retract my previous advice and will stick to encouraging our dear brother to pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit in this matter.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Thanks for that quote Chris. I was planning on engaging this idea that 1 Cor 5 warns worthy recipients that they should be worried that there might be unworthy recipients among them. It does no such thing and is applying an idea to the verse and the context that is foreign to the text.

Paul is dealing with a Body with _known_ rebellion in its midst - drunkenness and selfishness at the Table as well as fornicators who are not being, in the least way, disciplined. The rebuke is over the fact that not only do some approach the Table with known rebellion in their own hearts but others approve of those who rebel without taking any action against them.

This is a far cry from the idea that we ought to go into a Body _presuming_ there is hidden sin and worrying that others are polluting the Lord's Table. That cannot be sustained in the least and is repugnant to the Scriptures. Further, it is the duty of the Elders of Christ's Church to examine and warn members of the danger of receiving _unworthily_. Nowhere does Paul tell Elders to warn the people that there might be unworthy members among them so take heed not to celebrate with them. I believe a Church that approaches the Table in such a way is setting its members up for self-righteousness.

My call as a man who is not an Elder is to extend the right hand of fellowship to people and assume the best in them and let Elders lead their Churches. I have no right to go into that assembly and take on the role of Inquisitor to determine others orthodoxy and root out secret sin. I agree with Durham above that there are some religious bodies that are non-Christian and I would not participate in an idolatrous practice. Provided the Supper's meaning is not corrupted, however, I am to be gracious and warm to my fellow believers and _desire_ to fellowship with those who Christ owns.


----------



## ADKing

beej6 said:


> Rev. King, allow me to disagree with you here. The worship service, properly done, should help me to understand (again!) that I am a sinner in need of a Savior.



Of course it should. However, the directions in the Larger Catechism for preparing to take the Lord's Supper are far more extensive than simply understanding you are a sinner in need of a Savior. As you re-read those directions you will see why someone could come to the conclusion that more time in advance is necessary. During the worship service one should be wholly engaged in what is going on at the time and participating in all the elements whereas preparation as understood by the Westminster Divines required much meditation, self examination and fervent prayer. I am of the opinion that the worship service is not the time to _begin_ this process.


----------



## beej6

Rev. King,

Thank you for your reply. I will re-study the LC. Does this necessarily argue against a weekly observance of the Lord's Supper? For if that were the case, said meditation, self-examination, and fervent prayer would be happening daily (as perhaps it should anyway!)


----------



## MW

ADKing said:


> I am of the opinion that the worship service is not the time to _begin_ this process.



I share this opinion. The preparation in view is of a corporate nature. It is not simply the duty of the individual, and therefore able to be carried on in isolation from others; it is the duty of the church, of every individual in fellowship with one another.


----------



## ADKing

beej6 said:


> Rev. King,
> 
> Thank you for your reply. I will re-study the LC. Does this necessarily argue against a weekly observance of the Lord's Supper? For if that were the case, said meditation, self-examination, and fervent prayer would be happening daily (as perhaps it should anyway!)



We should all take the duties of meditation and self examination more seriously and engage in them more frequently than we do. The sad reality is, however, that most Christians do not live in a perpetual state like this. I have not been persuaded that weekly communion would cause Christians to be able to perform these duties more regularly. Albeit an argumet from experience, it has been my experience that those who advocate a weekly communion frequently lower the requirements of preparation de facto.

I would echo Rev. Winzer's helpful point. Another aspect of preparation for communion is _corporate_ preparation which is something very unlikely and impractical if communion were observed weekly.


----------



## Staphlobob

SRoper said:


> I'm not so sure closed communion is about avoiding communing with fornicators and idolaters, rather it's protecting said fornicators and idolaters for their own good.



You are correct. It is critical to understand that closing the gates (excommunication) of public and unrepentant sinners is not to punish them, but to protect them. 

When I've had to bar people from the communion table I was very sure to explain this to them. It didn't serve to make them appreciate my pastoral concern, but at least they knew.


----------



## Staphlobob

beej6 said:


> For if that were the case, said meditation, self-examination, and fervent prayer would be happening daily (as perhaps it should anyway!)



Which is precisely why I think weekly (if not more frequent) celebration of Holy Communion is the norm. This doesn't lead to a lowering of standards, but an intensification of the Christian life. 

As someone once said: "The sign of growing perfection is growing awareness of imperfection."


----------



## jaybird0827

ADKing said:


> ... However, the directions in the Larger Catechism for preparing to take the Lord's Supper are far more extensive than simply understanding you are a sinner in need of a Savior. As you re-read those directions you will see why someone could come to the conclusion that more time in advance is necessary. During the worship service one should be wholly engaged in what is going on at the time and participating in all the elements whereas preparation as understood by the Westminster Divines required much meditation, self examination and fervent prayer. I am of the opinion that the worship service is not the time to _begin_ this process.


 


ADKing said:


> ...
> I would echo Rev. Winzer's helpful point. Another aspect of preparation for communion is _corporate_ preparation which is something very unlikely and impractical if communion were observed weekly.


 
A congregation with which I'm fairly well-acquainted observed *monthly *communion on the first Lord's Day of the month. The application of the above, for them, meant a preparatory service on the last Lord's Day of every month. With a monthly Communion season that included two Sundays this was a total of 24 out of 52-53 Sundays. 

The Session was taken up with examinations nearly on a monthly basis due to new visitors turning up (a blessing, of course). Only 2-3 Sundays a month were left for ordinary preaching; thus continuity was a challenge.

At length the Pastor pleaded with the Session to consider going to a *quarterly* communion. The Session considered, a motion was made, and it passed. For them it a burden had been greatly lifted, to hear them tell it.

I am so thankful to be in a congregation where the Lord's Supper is quarterly. It comes often enough. As much as I look forward to the Lord's Table, I also dread it, as I wonder if I'm ever adequately prepared.


----------



## heartoflesh

ADKing said:


> It is not practical or realistic to expect that you can adequately prepare yourself for the sacrament 10 minutes before a service starts




You'll have to excuse me, but I don't attend a confessional church and I have no idea what must be done as far as preparation that would take more than 10 minutes. Could anyone help me understand this better?


----------



## LadyFlynt

Fred, more than likely there was more to the story than what was given...the portion given being an example of why it might be unwise to have an unknown visitor participate right away.


----------



## fredtgreco

LadyFlynt said:


> Fred, more than likely there was more to the story than what was given...the portion given being an example of why it might be unwise to have an unknown visitor participate right away.



Colleen,

Looked pretty clear to me. In fact, it clearly appeared that the joy was in the fact that the conversation was over ("end of conversation") after she gave that reply.


----------



## LadyFlynt

I guess we see it differently. I see it as relief that they didn't give communion to her. The relief being in the responsibility held by ministers over those they give communion to. To give someone communion wrongfully is heavy on the minister's head, not just the head of the individual.


Jay, do you know if the session had a chance to sit down and speak with this lady after services?


----------



## ADKing

Rick Larson said:


> You'll have to excuse me, but I don't attend a confessional church and I have no idea what must be done as far as preparation that would take more than 10 minutes. Could anyone help me understand this better?



The Westminster Larger Catechism says...

_Q171. How are they that receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper to prepare themselves before they come unto it?
A. They that receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper are, before they come, to prepare themselves thereunto, by examining themselves of their being in Christ, of their sins and wants; of the truth and measure of their knowledge, faith, repentance; love to God and the brethren, charity to all men, forgiving those that have done them wrong; of their desires after Christ, and of their new obedience; and by renewing the exercise of these graces, by serious meditation, and fervent prayer. 

_


----------



## heartoflesh

LadyFlynt said:


> I guess we see it differently. I see it as relief that they didn't give communion to her. The relief being in the responsibility held by ministers over those they give communion to. To give someone communion wrongfully is heavy on the minister's head, not just the head of the individual.
> 
> 
> Jay, do you know if the session had a chance to sit down and speak with this lady after services?



I think we can all agree there should have been some further discussion or inquiry with this person. "End of conversation" is unacceptable.

Anybody care to comment on my question a few posts up?


----------



## jaybird0827

LadyFlynt said:


> I guess we see it differently. I see it as relief that they didn't give communion to her. The relief being in the responsibility held by ministers over those they give communion to. To give someone communion wrongfully is heavy on the minister's head, not just the head of the individual.
> 
> Jay, do you know if the session had a chance to sit down and speak with this lady after services?


 
I cannot say for sure. As far as I know she stayed through the service, in which the offer of the gospel was given and would have witnessed what took place. Also, I am certain that what was reported was a summary of the conversation and not the entirety of it. She would have to have left quickly to avoid any possibility of a follow up.


----------



## jaybird0827

Rick Larson said:


> You'll have to excuse me, but I don't attend a confessional church and I have no idea what must be done as far as preparation that would take more than 10 minutes. Could anyone help me understand this better?


 
A simple answer (at least a start) would be found in the Shorter Catechism, more specifically Q/A 97.:

*Question 96.* _What is the Lord's supper_?
*Ans*. The Lord's supper is a sacrament, wherein, by giving and receiving 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, made partakers of his body and blood, with all his benefits, to their spiritual nourishment, and growth in grace.

*Question 97.* _What is required to the worthy receiving of the Lord's supper_?
*Ans*. 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, of their faith to feed upon him, of their repentance, love, and new obedience; lest, coming unworthily they eat and drink judgment to themselves.

This is fleshed out even more in the _Larger Catechism_. There are versions online that include references and links to the related Scriptures.


----------



## jaybird0827

fredtgreco said:


> Colleen,
> 
> Looked pretty clear to me. In fact, it clearly appeared that the joy was in the fact that the conversation was over ("end of conversation") after she gave that reply.


 
Pastor Greco, I could be wrong but I sense I'm being handled similarly to the way in which you perceived the subject to have been handled by the Session. This was a written post. If I was gloating, that is a sin. I'm not saying that my post was without sin or that the elders' endeavor to faithfulness in fencing the table was without sin. If I rejoice in God's mercy to an uninstructed visitor to avert an occasion for her to eat and drink judgment to herself, is that a sin? In many churches she would never have been questioned. If I rejoice that a Session, by the grace of God, purposes to be faithful in their duties, is that a sin?


----------



## heartoflesh

Thanks for those confessional statements. I certainly agree with everything that was stated.

I guess my question was more about the impractibility of preparing one's self in 10 minutes. I know at my church I don't even know we're having communion until after we get there, and then it's immediately following the worship time. There isn't really any serious time given for examination-- maybe a couple of minutes while the elements are being passed around.

I would think this is the way it is in most churches, so perhaps Presbyterian churches handle communion a little differently?


----------



## LadyFlynt

Most churches (and I believe this is good practice) will announce or have a regularly set communion (whether it's once a month or quarterly). As a member, you should keep that in mind and be preparing yourself...perhaps we should ALWAYS be preparing ourselves. The anabaptists usually meet the day before with their ministers, each taking turns speaking with the minister to make sure they have a clear conscience. Fasting and prayer is done during this time. This is another reason I'm in favour of smaller churches (ie., a church planting when it gets so big). So the minister can KNOW his flock.


----------



## Augusta

Rick Larson said:


> Thanks for those confessional statements. I certainly agree with everything that was stated.
> 
> I guess my question was more about the impractibility of preparing one's self in 10 minutes. I know at my church I don't even know we're having communion until after we get there, and then it's immediately following the worship time. There isn't really any serious time given for examination-- maybe a couple of minutes while the elements are being passed around.
> 
> I would think this is the way it is in most churches, so perhaps Presbyterian churches handle communion a little differently?



Our church always announces a week or two weeks beforehand that the supper is approaching and exhorts us to prepare ourselves. My old church never did this so it was a new thing for me when I became Presbyterian.


----------



## heartoflesh

Augusta said:


> Our church always announces a week or two weeks beforehand that the supper is approaching and exhorts us to prepare ourselves. My old church never did this so it was a new thing for me when I became Presbyterian.



Yeah, I've never heard of this before. I think it's a good idea though.

On the other hand, the Bible doesn't explicitly state how much time must be spent in preparation.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Rick Larson said:


> Thanks for those confessional statements. I certainly agree with everything that was stated.
> 
> I guess my question was more about the impractibility of preparing one's self in 10 minutes. I know at my church I don't even know we're having communion until after we get there, and then it's immediately following the worship time. There isn't really any serious time given for examination-- maybe a couple of minutes while the elements are being passed around.
> 
> I would think this is the way it is in most churches, so perhaps Presbyterian churches handle communion a little differently?



I'm curious, how much time needs to be given, according to the Scriptures? Or the WS for that matter? If we relegate our "examination" to a few minutes or hours the day or week before at actual time the Lord's Supper is celebrated, are we really doing justice to what the Lord requires? 



> Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?--unless indeed you are disqualified. But I trust that you will know that we are not disqualified. (2 Cor. 13:5,6)
> 
> Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; 13 exhort one another daily, while it is called "Today," lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. (Heb. 3:12,13)



We must not allow our traditions to interfere with pure worship in Spirit and truth. If we are examining ourselves daily, as the Scriptures teach, our walk with Christ will be more joyous and an intensified time just prior to the service is unnecessary. 

Perhaps frequent/weekly communion would help us better attain to the high calling in Christ.


----------



## Kevin

tcalbrecht said:


> I'm curious, how much time needs to be given, according to the Scriptures? Or the WS for that matter? If we relegate our "examination" to a few minutes or hours the day or week before at actual time the Lord's Supper is celebrated, are we really doing justice to what the Lord requires?
> 
> 
> 
> We must not allow our traditions to interfere with pure worship in Spirit and truth. If we are examining ourselves daily, as the Scriptures teach, our walk with Christ will be more joyous and an intensified time just prior to the service is unnecessary.
> 
> Perhaps frequent/weekly communion would help us better attain to the high calling in Christ.



 I would like to add more but I am leaving work soon to go home and "commune" with my wife so I need some time to prepare... 

No wait, I am married to her so I should be ready at any time to "fellowship".


----------



## tewilder

satz said:


> Some thing I would appreciate your opinions on.
> 
> If you are visiting a church and they are having the Lord's Supper, do you partake?
> 
> Is partaking like this inconsistent with a closed communion position?
> 
> Would you have to be in 100% doctrinal agreement with the church you are visiting to partake?



What bothers me is that most churches do not give any guidance about their rules and expectations. So how do I know whether I am doing something they don't want me to do?


----------



## Theoretical

tewilder said:


> What bothers me is that most churches do not give any guidance about their rules and expectations. So how do I know whether I am doing something they don't want me to do?


 I have noticed that as well. What in general is to be done in examining oneself for Communion?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I'm about to open  here. Some of this discussion reminds me of the way the Jews use Talmud to put a fence around the Word of God and turn what is relatively simple into an extremely complicated ritual. That many men have written about this subject in the history of Presbyterianism and contemplated deeper meanings and ways to avoid "taking in an unworthy manner" seems to add weight to the idea that we need to be so punctilious about preparation for the Lord's Table that we virtually avoid the benefit it affords believers as a means of Grace.

The words of institution in the Sacrament by Christ are fairly simple. The teaching on it in the Epistles is likewise fairly straightforward. We come to 1 Corintians where Paul is dealing with believers who are in _gross_ sin and disunity and celebrating a sacrament that is intended to highlight the union that we have in Christ.

Notice that Paul never tells them to hold off celebrating the Sacrament. After all, why not just tell them: cease and desist, make sure you are fully preparing yourselves for this and, until you get it right, don't do it at all. What a missed opportunity, in a Pastoral epistle, for him not to give clearer direction in the way some have turned the issue. If it is so vital, after all, that a believer's heart be so utterly prepared and sanctified before they _dare_ approach the table then why does Paul give so few instructions to a Church that is completely off the deep end?

This is an argument from silence and that is my point. There is relative silence about the process of examination here. I'm not arguing that examination is unimportant but the type of hyper-examination proposed by many Presbyterians is such a huge leap from the simplicity of the words of Scripture concerning this Sacrament. 

I find it sad that so many Presbyterians miss out on the opportunity to regularly feed on Christ and receive the strength they are trying to muster to get to the point where they now feel _worthy_ to approach the table. Something that should be a source of joy and strength is turned into a place of dread.

Some will, no doubt, find in this an argument against all examination and, in that, they would be wrong. I simply find the hyper-examination required of some bodies to be extra-Scriptural and to erect a wall between the Christian and God's means of grace.


----------



## MrMerlin777

SemperFideles said:


> I'm about to open  here. Some of this discussion reminds me of the way the Jews use Talmud to put a fence around the Word of God and turn what is relatively simple into an extremely complicated ritual. That many men have written about this subject in the history of Presbyterianism and contemplated deeper meanings and ways to avoid "taking in an unworthy manner" seems to add weight to the idea that we need to be so punctilious about preparation for the Lord's Table that we virtually avoid the benefit it affords believers as a means of Grace.
> 
> The words of institution in the Sacrament by Christ are fairly simple. The teaching on it in the Epistles is likewise fairly straightforward. We come to 1 Corintians where Paul is dealing with believers who are in _gross_ sin and disunity and celebrating a sacrament that is intended to highlight the union that we have in Christ.
> 
> Notice that Paul never tells them to hold off celebrating the Sacrament. After all, why not just tell them: cease and desist, make sure you are fully preparing yourselves for this and, until you get it right, don't do it at all. What a missed opportunity, in a Pastoral epistle, for him not to give clearer direction in the way some have turned the issue. If it is so vital, after all, that a believer's heart be so utterly prepared and sanctified before they _dare_ approach the table then why does Paul give so few instructions to a Church that is completely off the deep end?
> 
> This is an argument from silence and that is my point. There is relative silence about the process of examination here. I'm not arguing that examination is unimportant but the type of hyper-examination proposed by many Presbyterians is such a huge leap from the simplicity of the words of Scripture concerning this Sacrament.
> 
> I find it sad that so many Presbyterians miss out on the opportunity to regularly feed on Christ and receive the strength they are trying to muster to get to the point where they now feel _worthy_ to approach the table. Something that should be a source of joy and strength is turned into a place of dread.
> 
> Some will, no doubt, find in this an argument against all examination and, in that, they would be wrong. I simply find the hyper-examination required of some bodies to be extra-Scriptural and to erect a wall between the Christian and God's means of grace.


----------



## tcalbrecht

SemperFideles said:


> I'm about to open  here. Some of this discussion reminds me of the way the Jews use Talmud to put a fence around the Word of God and turn what is relatively simple into an extremely complicated ritual. That many men have written about this subject in the history of Presbyterianism and contemplated deeper meanings and ways to avoid "taking in an unworthy manner" seems to add weight to the idea that we need to be so punctilious about preparation for the Lord's Table that we virtually avoid the benefit it affords believers as a means of Grace.
> 
> The words of institution in the Sacrament by Christ are fairly simple. The teaching on it in the Epistles is likewise fairly straightforward. We come to 1 Corintians where Paul is dealing with believers who are in _gross_ sin and disunity and celebrating a sacrament that is intended to highlight the union that we have in Christ.
> 
> Notice that Paul never tells them to hold off celebrating the Sacrament. After all, why not just tell them: cease and desist, make sure you are fully preparing yourselves for this and, until you get it right, don't do it at all. What a missed opportunity, in a Pastoral epistle, for him not to give clearer direction in the way some have turned the issue. If it is so vital, after all, that a believer's heart be so utterly prepared and sanctified before they _dare_ approach the table then why does Paul give so few instructions to a Church that is completely off the deep end?
> 
> This is an argument from silence and that is my point. There is relative silence about the process of examination here. I'm not arguing that examination is unimportant but the type of hyper-examination proposed by many Presbyterians is such a huge leap from the simplicity of the words of Scripture concerning this Sacrament.
> 
> I find it sad that so many Presbyterians miss out on the opportunity to regularly feed on Christ and receive the strength they are trying to muster to get to the point where they now feel _worthy_ to approach the table. Something that should be a source of joy and strength is turned into a place of dread.
> 
> Some will, no doubt, find in this an argument against all examination and, in that, they would be wrong. I simply find the hyper-examination required of some bodies to be extra-Scriptural and to erect a wall between the Christian and God's means of grace.




 



> WLC Q. 172. May one who doubteth of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation, come to the Lord’s supper?
> 
> A. One who doubteth of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation to the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, may have true interest in Christ, though he be not yet assured thereof; and in God’s account hath it, if he be duly affected with the apprehension of the want of it, and unfeignedly desires to be found in Christ, and to depart from iniquity: *in which case (because promises are made, and this sacrament is appointed, for the relief even of weak and doubting Christians) he is to bewail his unbelief, and labor to have his doubts resolved; and, so doing, he may and ought of come to the Lord’s supper, that he may be further strengthened.*


----------

