# Session-Controlled Communion



## MLCOPE2 (Apr 5, 2010)

I recently joined an RPCNA church which I love dearly. I agree whole-heartedly with the distinctives of the denomination and have been blessed to be serving there with my family.

One of the distinctives of the RPCNA is session-controlled communion. I am familiar, and in agreement, with the reasoning behind why we practice it. I was wondering what other reformed churches practice this and why or why not?


----------



## jbucklin (Apr 5, 2010)

What all does "session-controlled communion" entail? I am an elder in the OPC and we practice something similar (I think) but I have not heard this terminology used before, so I want to make sure I understand what you mean before I reply in the affirmative.


----------



## Montanablue (Apr 5, 2010)

Yes, what is this? I thought the session would always control communion?


----------



## MLCOPE2 (Apr 5, 2010)

If someone is not a member of the church the session must interview them asking for a credible profession of faith and legitimate baptism before they are able to participate in the Lord's Supper.


----------



## raekwon (Apr 5, 2010)

It'd seem to me that such a practice could become unwieldy pretty quickly. I'd think that the Session's responsibility ends with the right preaching of the Gospel and giving the Scriptural warning against unworthy partaking. Scripture says "examine yourself", not "be examined by the elders."

Of course, the spirit behind the practice is good.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 5, 2010)

Such a practice undermines the connected nature of the Church, especially within a denomination, or NAPARC (for example). It says to elders of a sister congregation, essentially, "I don't trust your spiritual discernment."


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 5, 2010)

MLCOPE2 said:


> If someone is not a member of the church the session must interview them asking for a credible profession of faith and legitimate baptism before they are able to participate in the Lord's Supper.


 
In the PCA church I am a member of you are welcome to receive communion if you are a member in good standing of a church that teaches salvation by grace through faith in Jesus and if you have examined yourself. So, if communion is going to be a curse instead of a blessing it is left up to the individual to determine for themselves if they want to sin or not.


----------



## matt01 (Apr 5, 2010)

We attended a Canadian Reformed Church that used this practice. Visitors wouldn't even be allowed to the table (they had a physical table at the front of the sanctuary that everyone sat at during communion), without having gone through the elders beforehand.


----------



## MLCOPE2 (Apr 5, 2010)

fredtgreco said:


> Such a practice undermines the connected nature of the Church, especially within a denomination, or NAPARC (for example). It says to elders of a sister congregation, essentially, "I don't trust your spiritual discernment."


 
I am uncertain to the extent that that it is allowed, but, I do believe that any member of another RPCNA church is permitted upon admission of that to the session. I do not know about other NAPARC churches.

---------- Post added at 05:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:03 PM ----------




sans nom said:


> We attended a Canadian Reformed Church that used this practice. Visitors wouldn't even be allowed to the table (they had a physical table at the front of the sanctuary that every sat at during communion), without having gone through the elders beforehand.


 
That is exactly what we practice (only we don't have the table). The Pastor and session are very respectful about it and make sure to let visitors know that they feel that it is their responsibility to "guard the table" so as not to allow the unbeliever or unrepentant to eat or drink condemnation upon themselves.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 5, 2010)

fredtgreco said:


> Such a practice undermines the connected nature of the Church, especially within a denomination, or NAPARC (for example). It says to elders of a sister congregation, essentially, "I don't trust your spiritual discernment."


 
I think you are reading too much into this Fred. If a guest is present they just want to make sure of a persons standing in the Lord before they partake. It has nothing to do with NAPARC. If a guest shows up, how is the Church suppose to recognize whether one is a member of NAPARC? BTW, anyone can partake if they have a credible profession. It matters not if they are in a Reformed Church or not. 

Before one is permitted to partake in communion they need to be examined concerning their life and testimony. This examination only needs to be done once. This is not a procedure to keep non members or guests away from the Lord's table. It is a practice to protect someone from partaking in an unworthy manner. The process is not cumbersome. I have seen good fruit proceed from it and the gospel proclaimed by those who are ordained to do it.


----------



## jbucklin (Apr 5, 2010)

That's what we call "fencing the table". Instead of interviewing visitors, our pastor solemnly gives a warning during the prelude to the Lord's Supper, something to the effect of, "If you are living unrepentantly, not a member in good standing of a church, etc." Then its a matter of conscience for the participant.


----------



## Montanablue (Apr 5, 2010)

MLCOPE2 said:


> If someone is not a member of the church the session must interview them asking for a credible profession of faith and legitimate baptism before they are able to participate in the Lord's Supper.



Oh that's very different from what I had imagined. Thank you for the explanation.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Apr 6, 2010)

We visited an RPCNA congregation last year on a Sunday when communion was observed. Although we were obvious visitors, we were never approached by a member of the session and we were not invited to participate in communion. The pastor later apologized, but it was not clear if this was an oversight or intentional. (They never made clear why they were doing what they were doing. It almost seemed like closed communion.)


----------



## raekwon (Apr 6, 2010)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Before one is permitted to partake in communion they need to be examined concerning their life and testimony. This examination only needs to be done once. This is not a procedure to keep non members or guests away from the Lord's table. It is a practice to protect someone from partaking in an unworthy manner. The process is not cumbersome. I have seen good fruit proceed from it and the gospel proclaimed by those who are ordained to do it.


 
Again, I can see the good intentions that go into this practice, but I still question whether or not it's biblical (or at least biblically necessary). Scripture does command examination prior to partaking, but it's examination of one's self, not examination by the elders.

Perhaps I'm picking at nits.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Apr 8, 2010)

Would any of you administer the sacrament of baptism to an adult without first examining him?
Then why would you not examine someone, unknown to your session/consistory, before administering the other sacrament?

Personally, I disagree with our present practice. I believe in close communion -- that only other RPs ought to receive communion in an RP church. Our current practice of "session-controlled communion" has resulted in perhaps at least a half-dozen different practices, depending on the local church session.

But to say that a church ought only to preach the Word and pronounce the warning in administering the sacrament, is essentially saying that every individual is the sole judge of his own fitness to receive the sacrament, contrary to 1 Cor. 5:11, Matt. 7:6, etc.


----------



## JBaldwin (Apr 8, 2010)

While I understand the practice, it is not fun to be on the visitor's end of it. I attended a church for awhile which required this, and it was weeks before the elders found the time to examine me, though I requested it the first Sunday I attended the church. I was asked to sit on the side while the rest of the congregation participated. The elders reason for not examining me immediately was that they needed to "observe my life" for awhile before they would allow me in. 

I have also seen situations where churches within the same presbytery withold communion from members in good standing of churches within their presbytery. I can't understand this. If the elders make themselves available to meet with folks beforehand on the weeks they have the Lord's table, I would have no problem with it.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 8, 2010)

Kaalvenist said:


> Would any of you administer the sacrament of baptism to an adult without first examining him?
> Then why would you not examine someone, unknown to your session/consistory, before administering the other sacrament?
> 
> Personally, I disagree with our present practice. I believe in close communion -- that only other RPs ought to receive communion in an RP church. Our current practice of "session-controlled communion" has resulted in perhaps at least a half-dozen different practices, depending on the local church session.
> ...



Baptism is a completely different sacrament. I would have to examine the subject of baptism because it is an covenant _initiatory _rite, not a covenant _nourishing_ rite. Baptism and the Supper are apples and oranges in this respect.

At its core, Session controlled communion (or "closed" communion) is a denial of the connected nature of the Church. It makes the church act like a congregational church, not a connected one. What right does a church have, we might ask, to doubt the work of its fellow elders in another congregation? If our Session has examined a person and admitted him to membership and communion, I would expect that to be honored, and vice versa.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 8, 2010)

JBaldwin said:


> While I understand the practice, it is not fun to be on the visitor's end of it. I attended a church for awhile which required this, and it was weeks before the elders found the time to examine me, though I requested it the first Sunday I attended the church. I was asked to sit on the side while the rest of the congregation participated. The elders reason for not examining me immediately was that they needed to "observe my life" for awhile before they would allow me in.
> 
> I have also seen situations where churches within the same presbytery withhold communion from members in good standing of churches within their presbytery. I can't understand this. If the elders make themselves available to meet with folks beforehand on the weeks they have the Lord's table, I would have no problem with it.


 This is yet another reason. Somehow, churches with closed communion are so concerned about keeping the unexamined away, and yet at the same time not concerned enough to actually make the time to examine visitors on Sunday morning. It lays all the burden on the individual believer, and none on the Session.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Apr 8, 2010)

fredtgreco said:


> Kaalvenist said:
> 
> 
> > Would any of you administer the sacrament of baptism to an adult without first examining him?
> ...


 
(Unless you are a Baptist) Communion is not a sacrament of the local church. The local Session does not have responsibility for the soul of a visitor who is a member in good standing of another Bible-believing/gospel Church. That is the jurisdiction of the visitor’s Session. The only thing the local Session may legitimately be interested in is whether the person is, in fact, a member in good standing of another Bible-believing/gospel Church. But they still must rely on the testimony of the visitor for that information.

A local Session that does not accept that fact seriously undermines the connectionalism of Christ’s church at some level. They are saying, in effect, we are better guardians of souls than you are.


----------



## ADKing (Apr 8, 2010)

fredtgreco said:


> What right does a church have, we might ask, to doubt the work of its fellow elders in another congregation?



Are you talking about congregations within the same denomination? I can understand this. Although it would be nice if we went back to the older practice of requiring members from other congregations to bring letters of attestation from their own sessions. This allows the session administering the sacrament the ability to have the (self) testimony of the visitors confirmed by two or three witnesses. I would contend that if a visitor casually shows up without advanced preparation such a person may not really be prepared to participate in communion whatever denomination they are from.

If you are talking about different denominations then it becomes a different question. Surely if the "fellow elders" of another denomination were using a different standrad of doctrine and practice than your own their judgment would be questionable. 

For example: The RPCNA has a long standing position against Christian participation in secret societies. There are other "reformed" denominations that allow their members to be members of the church and secret societies at the same time. Reformed Presbyterians believe this is sin. Should we be obliged to admit such a person to communion because they are members in good standing, when we would discipline our own members for this same offence? This would cause a double standard (at least) and be destructive to the unity of the saints which we are ostensibly demonstrating in communion.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Apr 8, 2010)

fredtgreco said:


> Baptism is a completely different sacrament. I would have to examine the subject of baptism because it is an covenant _initiatory _rite, not a covenant _nourishing_ rite. Baptism and the Supper are apples and oranges in this respect.
> 
> At its core, Session controlled communion (or "closed" communion) is a denial of the connected nature of the Church. It makes the church act like a congregational church, not a connected one. What right does a church have, we might ask, to doubt the work of its fellow elders in another congregation? If our Session has examined a person and admitted him to membership and communion, I would expect that to be honored, and vice versa.


I'm well aware that baptism is the initiatory sacrament and the Lord's supper is the nourishing sacrament, but that doesn't really answer the question. Why would examination for the Supper not be necessary? Doesn't the fact that the session admits or forbids individuals to the Table (by bringing people into membership or administering discipline) indicate that examination does not rest only with the individual, but also with the church session?

Session-controlled communion, or close communion (Lutherans tend to use the term "closed") recognizes the divided nature of the visible church. In our church's current practice of session-controlled communion, I can almost guarantee that PCAers would be admitted to the Table upon examination. But how does a church session know that an individual is a member of a PCA congregation without examination?

And as I believe in close communion, I also believe that individuals should not be admitted to the membership of the visible church without receiving the subordinate standards of the church. This is not something required by other Presbyterian churches; and besides, your churches do not receive the RPCNA Testimony. If we could not receive individuals to membership, why would we receive them to the privileges of membership?


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 8, 2010)

If a denomination is in ecclesiastical relations with another denomination, they have no business forbidding the Supper to the latter's communing members in good standing. You can't (rightly) take away with the left hand what you have given with the right. Either the Church is connectional or it is not.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 8, 2010)

Kaalvenist said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > Baptism is a completely different sacrament. I would have to examine the subject of baptism because it is an covenant _initiatory _rite, not a covenant _nourishing_ rite. Baptism and the Supper are apples and oranges in this respect.
> ...


 Examination is by the Church. The practice you describe arrogates power to a Session that it does not Biblically have, and denies the authority of other Sessions. It is at best, implicit congregationalism, at worst, a denial of the unity of the visible Church.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Apr 8, 2010)

ADKing said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > What right does a church have, we might ask, to doubt the work of its fellow elders in another congregation?
> ...


Exactly. We should not admit unrepentant sinners to the Table. Wrong belief and worship is sin, therefore an individual ought to profess adherence to the doctrine, worship, government, and discipline of the church of which they are a member. If we believe hymn-singing is a violation of the second commandment (or failure to bring one's children to baptism, or participation in an unscriptural form of church government, etc.), and censurable by the church, why would we admit individuals from other churches to our Table for things that would subject our own members to discipline?


----------



## Idelette (Apr 8, 2010)

I'm not sure that I agree that closed-communion is unbiblical, in fact, I'd say just the opposite. Scripture does say that those that partake in communion should examine themselves. And how can a guest have examined themselves prior to visiting another congregation? Most likely they have not examined themselves and had time to prepare for partaking in the Lord's supper. 

I think it is very appropriate for the Session to fence the table lest anyone partake in the sacraments unworthily. I don't believe it has anything to do with connectedness between Sessions but more a duty to administer the sacraments carefully. I think the session has the right to ask whether a guest is a member in good standing at another Biblical congregation. The Westminster Confession does say, _"All ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with (the Lord), so are they unworthy of the Lord's table, and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or *be admitted thereunto*." -Section VIII _So that shows me that they are being admitted to the table rather than admitting themselves thereunto. Backwoods Presbyterian posted this in his blog and I think its a good overview on this topic: Session-Controlled Communion: Another View


----------



## Kaalvenist (Apr 8, 2010)

fredtgreco said:


> Examination is by the Church. The practice you describe arrogates power to a Session that it does not Biblically have, and denies the authority of other Sessions. It is at best, implicit congregationalism, at worst, a denial of the unity of the visible Church.


And the practice you describe arrogates power to the individual to enjoy the privileges of Christ's church, regardless of their actual faith or practice, and regardless of which church they happen to attend that day. Regardless of their supposed "right," a church's session still has the duty before Christ to see that its ordinances are administered in purity. 1 Corinthians 5 still requires that we do not eat with those who call themselves brethren who continue in known, unrepentant sin. Is a warning from the pulpit deemed sufficient when dealing with your own church members' sins? Then why would it be deemed sufficient for everyone else, who you assume are members in good standing of another evangelical church?

The unity of the church does not consist in ignoring differences in faith or practice, and having said divergent individuals sit together at the same Table. It consists in unity in and around the truth of God's Word.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 8, 2010)

Kaalvenist said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > Examination is by the Church. The practice you describe arrogates power to a Session that it does not Biblically have, and denies the authority of other Sessions. It is at best, implicit congregationalism, at worst, a denial of the unity of the visible Church.
> ...


 No, you are conflating the issue. No power goes to the individual - it is his Session that admits him to membership, and admits him to the table. Session controlled communion replaces the determination of his actual shepherds with a theological construct. It denies the elders the authority given to them by Christ - to shepherd the flock over which they are placed. Would we let a Session discipline a person over whom they had no authority? Could they bar him from the table? Excommunicate him? Depose him from office? Of course not! And yet you are willing to let them bar him from the Table, and overturn the pronouncement of Christ's Church (as represented in its branch).

A Session can do that, but it ought to stop pretending that it is Presbyterian.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Apr 8, 2010)

fredtgreco said:


> If a denomination is in ecclesiastical relations with another denomination, they have no business forbidding the Supper to the latter's communing members in good standing. You can't (rightly) take away with the left hand what you have given with the right. Either the Church is connectional or it is not.


But how does the session know that you're PCA (or OPC, or ARP, etc.) unless you let them know? You could be Joe who was raised nominally Popish in his youth, and just decided today to attend the nearest church, or Harry who's having problems at his own United Pentecostal church. These are extreme examples; but you raise another question. What right does a church session have to administer the sacrament to someone who is a member in good standing of an evangelical church, or even a Reformed or Calvinistic church, but not a church with which your church has fraternal relations? Even granting the question you've begged (concerning the legitimacy of things like NAPARC and the ICRC), what do you do when a Reformed Baptist or Protestant Reformed comes to your church during communion time?


----------



## JBaldwin (Apr 8, 2010)

The Scriptures teach that each one is to examine himself before partaking. It does not say the session is required to do this. If the elder/pastor administering the Lord’s Table gives these instructions to those who are present with the warning that Scripture gives, that should be sufficient. Our session goes a step further and asks that those participating be active communicant members not under censure by their session and that they have examined themselves and make sure they are ready to receive.


----------



## ADKing (Apr 8, 2010)

Rev. Greco,

I am interested in how you would view the hypothetical situation I posited. My own denomination prohibits membership in secret societies. A member of another reformed church (say even a NAPARC one for example) comes and in addition to being a member in good standing in that denomination is also a Free Mason. If such a person applied for communing membership in the RPCNA he should be denied. If an RPCNA member became a Free Mason, theoretically he should be disciplined (up to exclusion from the table if necessary). Are you suggesting that I would be under obligation to admit a visitor who was a member of a NAPARC church and a Free Mason when if he were a member of our congregation he would be disciplined? This seems very inconsistent to me. How would you respond?


----------



## Kaalvenist (Apr 8, 2010)

fredtgreco said:


> No, you are conflating the issue. No power goes to the individual - it is his Session that admits him to membership, and admits him to the table. Session controlled communion replaces the determination of his actual shepherds with a theological construct. It denies the elders the authority given to them by Christ - to shepherd the flock over which they are placed. Would we let a Session discipline a person over whom they had no authority? Could they bar him from the table? Excommunicate him? Depose him from office? Of course not! And yet you are willing to let them bar him from the Table, and overturn the pronouncement of Christ's Church (as represented in its branch).
> 
> A Session can do that, but it ought to stop pretending that it is Presbyterian.


You haven't yet given Scripture for your position, or explained how your practice is consistent with 1 Corinthians 5.


> 6. Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
> 7. Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
> 8. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
> 9. I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
> ...


How is your church's practice consistent with this portion of Scripture?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 8, 2010)

Our session holds examination before every communion service. There is no waiting and the communion service is in the evening. So if you attended the morning worship you were informed of the practice. BTW, I imagine there is really truly nothing standing in the way of someone partaking since the bread and wine are passed down each row. There is no one specifically standing over someone to tell them they can't partake. If a person has not be examined they encouraged to not take part. 

I actually believe this practice is just* good shepherding*. It is also a way for the Session to protect the Church and its attenders. The Church is suppose to protect the souls of the people. 



> (1Co 11:29) For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
> 
> (1Co 11:30) For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
> 
> ...



I have no problem in submitting to this practice in light of this passage. 



> (Heb 13:17) Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: *for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account*, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.



It didn't take long for my sons to be examined last month and it was quite revealing to me also. I got to hear things I didn't know. It was very edifying and helpful to me as a Parent.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 8, 2010)

Kaalvenist said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > No, you are conflating the issue. No power goes to the individual - it is his Session that admits him to membership, and admits him to the table. Session controlled communion replaces the determination of his actual shepherds with a theological construct. It denies the elders the authority given to them by Christ - to shepherd the flock over which they are placed. Would we let a Session discipline a person over whom they had no authority? Could they bar him from the table? Excommunicate him? Depose him from office? Of course not! And yet you are willing to let them bar him from the Table, and overturn the pronouncement of Christ's Church (as represented in its branch).
> ...



It is consistent in that I require participants to be members in good standing in their own churches. Somehow, I think that a home Session is a better judge than a 5 minute "interview" done completely in a vacuum.

We are not called to exercise authority over those who are not under us. You keep saying it, over and over again in different ways, but it is still wrong: your position is that each *individual congregation* is called to judge the profession of every Christian that walks into their building, regardless of the fact that they have no spiritual authority over such Christian. If we are talking about unbelievers, that is one thing (they can be barred from the table). But when we say that we will not accept the decision of elders *with whom we have ecclesiatical relations* (or even union!) that denies the connected nature of the Church.

You might also want to consider that your opinion leads to the logical conclusion that you should not take communion in any other denominational church.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> > (Heb 13:17) Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: *for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account*, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't take long for my sons to be examined last month and it was quite revealing to me also. I got to hear things I didn't know. It was very edifying and helpful to me as a Parent.


 Who watches the souls, Randy? Who must give account? Is it those who have rule over you, or those who do not?

I'll bow out now and let whomever have the last word.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Apr 8, 2010)

Speaking as a little-p presbyterian, one Session does not have the right or responsibility to unilaterally excommunicate the members who are subject to another Session (Heb. 13:17). The Session of congregation A does not have rule over the conscience of the members of congregation B. Communion is the Table of the Lord, not that of a particular congregation. That is what connectionalism is all about; respect of one Session for another.

And any denomination that raises it peculiar idiosyncrasies (membership in secret societies, exclusive psalmody, etc ) to the level of standard for salvation borders on cultish behavior, in my opinion. If one believes they are then they ought to be practicing tightly closed communion within that group. Frankly, I would no more wish to take communion in that sort of fellowship that at the popish altar.


----------



## ADKing (Apr 8, 2010)

fredtgreco said:


> Somehow, I think that a home Session is a better judge than a 5 minute "interview" done completely in a vacuum.
> 
> We are not called to exercise authority over those who are not under us. You keep saying it, over and over again in different ways, but it is still wrong: your position is that each *individual congregation* is called to judge the profession of every Christian that walks into their building, regardless of the fact that they have no spiritual authority over such Christian. If we are talking about unbelievers, that is one thing (they can be barred from the table). But when we say that we will not accept the decision of elders *with whom we have ecclesiatical relations* (or even union!) that denies the connected nature of the Church.
> 
> You might also want to consider that your opinion leads to the logical conclusion that you should not take communion in any other denominational church.



A 5 minute interview in a vacuum is thoroughly inadequate, I totally agree. Ideally proponents of session controlled or close communion would do more than this.

You keep asserting that a session has no spiritual authority over a visitor from another church. Why? Is not the session called to protect the purity of the sacrament? Does it not have authority not to admit those who are ignorant or ungodly (WCF 29.8)? You seem to be saying that elders do not have the right to judge whether someone is ignorant or ungodly if a session of a church with "relations" says they are not. But I have given a concrete example of a situation in which there may be a different opinion on just that matter. While I love and value my brethren in other denominations, there are matters of doctrine and piety on which we disagree and it would be wrong of me not to insist on what I believe is true and the standards I have sworn to uphold just because others do not see the word of God the same way I do. Such a way leads to doctrinal and practical relativism or the denomination with the "least common denominator" standards for communion being able to control the practice of other churches. I am still very curious how someone who disagrees with this principle would answer the practical scenario I suggested.

You are absolutely correct in pointing out that close communion means communing only with others who share the same doctrine and practice. Without accusing you of this Rev Greco, I am concerned any other approach to communion reduces the sacrament to a mere show of unity without any actual corresponding substance of unity.

---------- Post added at 03:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:05 PM ----------




tcalbrecht said:


> And any denomination that raises it peculiar idiosyncrasies (membership in secret societies, exclusive psalmody, etc ) to the level of standard for salvation borders on cultish behavior, in my opinion. If one believes they are then they ought to be practicing tightly closed communion within that group. Frankly, I would no more wish to take communion in that sort of fellowship that at the popish altar.


 
No one is saying that exclusive psalmody is a prerequisite for salvation. But exclusive psalmody adherents are saying it is necessary to be faithfully obeying God. I am curious about this: Is there ever an occasion when it would be appropriate to keep a true Christian from coming to the Lord’s Table? You seem to be suggesting there is not. On what basis? I am suggesting it is on the basis of such texts as 2 Thessalonians 3.14-15.


----------



## Whitefield (Apr 8, 2010)

What started as protecting an individual from partaking in communion in a "unworthy manner" (1 Cor. 11:27), now seems to be protecting the Lord's Table. From what are we protecting the Lord's Table, and where in Scripture is this "protecting the Lord's Table" raised and resolved?


----------



## sdesocio (Apr 8, 2010)

As someone who was seeking ordination in the RPCNA, each individual church is required to interview members. For the RPCNA this is a loosening. There understanding is that they moved from entirely closed (members of their congregation and their denomination only) to session controlled communion. 
There was a time when one would could only take if one had a communion token(there are some examples at RPTS in Pittsburgh). I think the spirit comes out of a high view of the calling of the session as under shepherds I think the logic would follow: you'd never let a sheep eat something that might be poisonous to them so it is your responsibility to make sure they won't be poisoned.

While I appreciate their concern this was one of the two things that made me realize I had to seek ordination elsewhere. Paul's command to let everyone examine them self seems to be the mitigating factor.

It does become a major burden on some churches. I was a member at a church in Beaver Falls right across from Geneva College, when they had session often there were over 50 people needing to be examined. The session there went to a written document that was followed up by a short talk but it was still a major challenge, that I don't think was necessary.



> (membership in secret societies, exclusive psalmody, etc ) to the level of standard for salvation


 I don't know any RPs who would say you aren't saved if you don't sing Psalms...that might be a logical consequence but *no one* is that consistent.

I do think Fred is right about it creating disunity. It does seem to come across as suggesting that the examination of another session cannot be accepted.
I have many people I love in the RPCNA(including my father and step mother.)


----------



## JBaldwin (Apr 8, 2010)

Along these lines, at what point do session members go from examining believers who will participate in the Lord's table to judging them? By what standards?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 8, 2010)

I personally think you guys are making way to much of this. And there seems to be some hypothetical situations that are being asked about that are just rabbit trails in my opinion. Plus, it seems like some extreme situations are being presented here. Should we base our decisions on extreme situations? I don't think so. 

As far as asking for standards by which to examine someone, the early Church practice of catechumens was way more intrusive and time consuming. 

Does anyone here know if there is a set of standards. I can find out. But I don't really know. 

Fred,

I believe an Elder should be respected as an Elder. I think everyone should be cautious and render due honor to anyone that is ordained. As St. Paul recommended that we even honor Civil magistrates I would think it important to honor any Biblically ordained elder of any Church. I might be assuming too much but the average local congregations I have been a part of do assume some care and responsibility over those who might not be regenerate and or who are guests looking for a church home. 

If one is made an administer of the sacrament then their must be some responsibility as to how and to whom it is administered. If there is a possibility that it might be harmful to someone wouldn't you think it to be a loving act to make sure it is going be a benefit to the person in the first place? I believe it is an act of love and concern. You might disagree with me on this one.


----------



## Idelette (Apr 8, 2010)

I was just thinking about paedocommunion.... how would those of you that don't agree with session-controlled communion address a visiting family that wanted their children to partake in the Lord's Supper? Given that their own church practices paedocommunion and they are members in good standing, and their children feel worthy to partake. I'm not trying to argue, just sincerely wondering how you would deal with this situation if we are to respect other sessions because of the connected nature of the Church?


----------



## dudley (Apr 8, 2010)

I am a Presbyterian and im my congregation we celebrate the Lords Supper once on month on the first Sunday.
The Sunday before an announcement is in the church bullitin saying the following. and a similar announcement is made on the Sunday we celebrate the Supper.
We will be observing the sacrament of the Lord’s
Supper during our morning worship service next Sunday. 
We welcome to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper all baptized persons who have
made a credible profession of faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and
Savior, who are members in good standing in a Bible-believing
Christian Church, and who are seeking to live in obedience to God
and at peace with fellow believers. May we all take time this week
to examine ourselves before the Lord so that we might partake of
the sacrament for our own spiritual growth and edification and for
the glory of God.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Apr 8, 2010)

fredtgreco said:


> Such a practice undermines the connected nature of the Church, especially within a denomination, or NAPARC (for example). It says to elders of a sister congregation, essentially, "I don't trust your spiritual discernment."


 



Idelette said:


> I was just thinking about paedocommunion.... how would those of you that don't agree with session-controlled communion address a visiting family that wanted their children to partake in the Lord's Supper? Given that their own church practices paedocommunion and they are members in good standing, and their children feel worthy to partake. I'm not trying to argue, just sincerely wondering how you would deal with this situation if we are to respect other sessions because of the connected nature of the Church?



Outstanding question and it has everything to do with this discussion in my opinion. 

I know that NAPARC denominations have for the most part stood against paedocommunion.

Children at the Lord’s Table? (1)


----------



## kvanlaan (Apr 8, 2010)

I think a balance between the two works well. In our church, we have two elders replace the greeting family at the door, and they meet the guests and take requests for partaking of the Lord's supper. There is a brief discussion, filling out a form, and that's it. That way they are also 'greeted' from the pulpit at the beginning of the service.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Apr 8, 2010)

fredtgreco said:


> Kaalvenist said:
> 
> 
> > fredtgreco said:
> ...


Fred,

How do you require participants to be members in good standing of any church? Theoretically, you hold to a restricted communion (only communicant members in good standing of evangelical churches may partake); but practically, you administer an open communion -- you don't even attempt to find out if visitors are members in good standing of any church before the elements are passed around, free for the taking. I adhere to a stricter theory (close communion); but is it really so hard to find out before the service from visitors if they are communicant members of a congregation affiliated with your own, or in fraternal relations with your own? I'm not saying that you should *debar* people from the Table; I'm saying that you should _*admit*_ people to the Table, instead of allowing them to *admit themselves.*

And I don't take communion in non-Covenanter churches.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Apr 22, 2010)

Whitefield said:


> What started as protecting an individual from partaking in communion in a "unworthy manner" (1 Cor. 11:27), now seems to be protecting the Lord's Table. From what are we protecting the Lord's Table, and where in Scripture is this "protecting the Lord's Table" raised and resolved?


I was just reading the following from Turretin the other day. (I should point out that the text he discusses, Matthew 7:6, was one of the original proofs of the last clause of the Westminster Confession of Faith, 29.8: "Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Him, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table; and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, *or be admitted thereunto.*")

From his _Institutes,_ Loc. XVIII, Qu. XXXII, Sec. XVIII (Vol. 3, p. 303):


> Sixth, (ecclesiastical discipline is proved) from Mt. 7:6, where Christ forbids to "give that which is holy unto the dogs." Now by the words "that which is holy" are meant the mysteries (_mysteria_) of which the servants of God are stewards (1 Cor. 4:1). The terms "dogs" and "swine" square with none better than with those whom, admitted into the church, experience has proved to be such and the church has judged. Therefore the Lord forbids the giving of his mysteries and consequently the dispensing of the sacraments to such. *And although this is not said directly with respect to the Eucharist or excommunication, still the general rule is elicited from it, concerning the not tolerating the profanation of sacred mysteries, which is done by impure swine and dogs.* Nor ought it to be replied that the bad cannot corrupt the good with whom they communicate. A great scandal is created thence to pious souls who cannot without a holy indignation see *these sacred mysteries polluted by the profane* and themselves associated with them at the same table and that no distinction is made between the good and bad, the penitent and impenitent. Again, these mysteries are made common when the holy things which are intended for the holy are distributed promiscuously to the profane. Third, although no harm should come thence to the good and pious, still the greatest evil is in this -- *that the profane themselves pollute the sacred table* and bring down upon themselves most certain destruction, eating and drinking their own condemnation. *Now it is the duty of pastors to hinder as far as they are able pollution of this kind, lest they also themselves be guilty of the holy things being polluted by others through their negligence.* Would it not be cruel mercy to give to a profane person free access to the sacred mysteries by which he would contract new guilt? Nay, compassion alone (by which it is just to be moved towards the miserable one increasing his crimes and in this way casting himself headlong into the gulf of perdition) would be sufficient for denying him th esacrament, even if there were no other reason for it.


And yes, I brought all three volumes of Turretin with me to Afghanistan... it made my ruck sack just a little heavier.


----------



## MLCOPE2 (Apr 22, 2010)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > Such a practice undermines the connected nature of the Church, especially within a denomination, or NAPARC (for example). It says to elders of a sister congregation, essentially, "I don't trust your spiritual discernment."
> ...



I would still like to see this issue addressed as well. Any takers?


----------

