Confusion if I should take the Lord's Supper

Status
Not open for further replies.

wsa

Puritan Board Freshman
I have a massive dilema. Recently a member of the church resigned their membership but still attends - which is fine. They also have rejected the teaching of the Church as defined in the Westminster Confession of Faith- not good at all. We had the Lord's Supper recently and this person was allowed to take the Lord's Supper. Seeing that they had went forward for the Lord's Supper I declined. This took place about a month ago. What troubles me is that in my understanding of the Scriptures and the WCF that they should not have been permitted to the table. But am I being harsh? My conscience is greatly troubled by this because now I am concerned about my own conscience towards the session, additionally I have not been asked by my minister /session as to why I didn't take of the Lord's Supper - we are only a very small fellowship so it is impossible for him not to know. I have arranged to meet him to discuss this but I am very concerned about the whole affair. Am I being extreme - my conscience is in turmoil over the whole affair. I am greatly troubled.
 
According to the WLC:

Q. 173. May any who profess the faith, and desire to come to the Lord's Supper, be kept from it?
A. Such as are found to be ignorant or scandalous, notwithstanding their profession of the faith, and desire to come to the Lord's Supper, may and ought to be kept from that sacrament, by the power which Christ hath left in his church,u until they receive instruction, and manifest their reformation.w

Unless the family you are speaking about is ignorant of a relationship with Christ or scandalously involved in unrepentant sin and under church discipline, I am not sure why they should be kept from the Lord's Table. I attend an OPC and our session allows baptists to partake of Christ at the table. Their view is that unreserved subscription to the Westminster Standards is not what makes a person a Christian and I believe they are in keeping with the Westminster Standards and the Bible. Keeping people from the Lord's Table should depend on what they have denied of the WCF.

There are several things that need to be clarified about the issues you are raising. What of the WCF did this family deny? Also, since you seem perplexed about your not participating in the Lord's Supper, why did you not participate? Finally, did you administer the elements of the table to the other communicants at the same time you did not partake of Christ at the table?
 
Brother,
You just frankly need to have the talk with your minister first. You don't have all the information you need about your own situation, to be seeking input from a bunch of strangers, who are even further removed from the situation.

People who are not members of the church somewhere really shouldn't be taking communion, or be offered it. But churches make mistakes all the time. Sometimes, they even codify their mistakes or expressly justify them. If you find that the church is violating its own standards, then you have a choice to make: is this situation so bad, I must go elsewhere? Is there any place better to go?

In any case, none of us are in any position to be counseling you, at least not now since you have not gotten a full perspective on the matter. We here should not be developing a biased view toward your church or its leadership, based on such limited data.
 
wsa, I am sure a moderator will ask you to fix your signature, so you might wish to do that. The person, no longer being a member of a Bible believing church should not have been allowed to take -- unless, they had joined with another body and were in good standing there. Go to your session, and see what they say. To do so is, in effect, to excommunicate yourself. Talk to your session. Bruce's advice is on target.


Unless the family you are speaking about is ignorant of a relationship with Christ or scandalously involved in unrepentant sin and under church discipline, I am not sure why they should be kept from the Lord's Table.

Friend, you are wrong. (I think you should reread Q173 and its answer.) If they have removed themselves out from under the discipline of a church, without joining another, they are in involved in an unrepentant sin. Most Reformed denominations fence the table in this manner, "If you are a member in good standing, of a Bible believing, evangelical denomination, you are welcome to the table..." If this person has removed himself from the membership of the church, he is no longer a member in good standing; he is not a member at all. The instance here is not if Baptists can come to the table, it is if those who are not under the discipline & authority of a Church can.
 
First find out what the deal is with that former member. Ask what your church's elders decided regarding the Supper and why. I'm afraid it could be that the biggest problem, in this case, is your distrust that your elders are handling things properly. All involved ought to be eager to communicate more clearly what's happening, as fully as confidentiality will allow, once they realize how it concerns you. Ask nicely, not accusingly.
 
And as noted already, you do need to fix your signature. For convenience, just click the link below, under my name.
 
Friend, you are wrong. (I think you should reread Q173 and its answer.) If they have removed themselves out from under the discipline of a church, without joining another, they are in involved in an unrepentant sin. ...The instance here is not if Baptists can come to the table, it is if those who are not under the discipline & authority of a Church can.

I am wrong. Thanks for the correction. I am glad I spoke according to my understanding because I just learned something very important. To persist in forsaking the assembly by not submitting to membership in the body of Christ is[I/] unrepentant sin!
 
Regardless, whether they should have been allowed or not, it does not corrupt the sacrament as far as our own partaking. James Durham handles this question in his Treatise Concerning Scandal (Naphtali Press, 2013 updated edition, unpublished). This is from part two, at the end of chapter four. Most of the formating has dropped out in the cut and paste; see the PDF attached for the formatted text.


Concerning Whether The Ordinances Of Christ Be Any Way Polluted By Corrupt Fellow Worshippers.
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 (Mal. 1). And in this sense the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was indeed polluted by the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11), 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 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 Not separating the precious from the vile, 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 others' 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, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat, 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.

Showing If Anything Further In Any Imaginable Case Is Allowed To Private Christians.
2. It may be yet further moved, ‘Can there be no more allowed in any supposable case?’ ANswer. It is most unsuitable, in a matter of practice, when folks are not contending for curiosity, but for direction, to suppose cases hardly or rarely possible in a constitute church which is worthy of that name, or upon that ground to found a contest in dispute, or schism in practice, in cases palpably different; at least, union should be kept till such cases come about. And is it likely, where the order formerly laid down is observed, that there can be habitual admission of notoriously or grievously scandalous persons, though, it may be, there are lesser failings of several sorts? Yet, supposing that any, out of infirmity or affection, not having such knowledge, or otherwise, should stick to join in the ordinances at some times, or in some places, upon such an account, who yet do not love separation, or the erecting of a different church, we say further:

(1.) That in such a case, such persons may remove from one congregation to another, where such grossness cannot be pretended to be; and the persons being otherwise without scandal, can neither be pressed to continue (they being so burdened) nor yet refused to be admitted where [in an] orderly [way] they shall desire to join, seeing this could not be denied to any. And we suppose few will be so uncharitable, as to think there is no congregation whereto they can join, or yet so addicted to outward respects, as to choose separation with offense to others, disturbance to the church, and, it may be, with little quietness to themselves, when they have a remedy so inoffensive allowed unto them.

(2.) Although separation is never allowable, and secession is not always at an instant practicable, yet we suppose in some cases, simple abstinence, if it is not offensive in the manner and circumstances, if it is not made customary, and if the ground is so convincing, and the case so gross that it will affect any ingenuous hearer, and so evident that there is no access to any acquainted in such places to deny the same, or that there be a present undecided process concerning such things before a competent judge; in some such cases, I say, as might be supposed, we conceive abstinence were not rigidly to be misconstructed: it being for the time the burden of such persons, that they cannot join, and, it may be, having some public complaint of such a thing to make out, and in dependence elsewhere. Although we will not strengthen any to follow this way, nor can it be pretended to, where the case is not singularly horrid; yet supposing it to be such, we conceive it is the safest one way for the person’s peace, and the preventing of offense together. Yet much Christian prudence is to be exercised in the conveying of the same, if it were by removing for a time, or otherways, that there appear to be no public contempt. But we conceive this case is so rarely incident, and possibly that there needs be little said of it, much less should there be any needless debate or rent entertained upon the consideration or notion thereof. And certainly, the case before us of the admitting of the Nicolaitans and Jezebel, considering their doctrine and deeds, is more horrid than readily can be supposed. Yet it would seem that, though this defect should still have continued, the Lord requires no other thing of private professors, but their continuing in or holding fast of their former personal purity, which is all the burden that he lays upon them.

To shut up all, we may see what evils are to be evited in the prosecution of public scandals, and what a commendable thing it [would be] to have this in the right manner vigorous. If private Christians were zealous, loving and prudent in their private admonitions; if officers were diligent, single, grave, and weighty in what concerns them; if offending persons were humble and submissive, and all [were] reverent and respective of the ordinances, and studious of private and public edification, how beautiful and profitable a thing would it be? Certainly this manner of procedure would be more beautifying to the ordinances of Christ, more convincing to all onlookers, more sweet and easy both to officers and people, and more edifying and gaining to all, and, by God’s blessing, would be the way to make the mistaken yoke of discipline to be accounted easy and light. And if all those ends are desirable, and the contrary evils are to be eschewed, then unquestionably the right manner of managing this great ordinance of discipline is carefully to be studied and followed both by officers and people.
View attachment DurhamScandal140-144.pdf
 
I would hope in good faith that the session has details about this family's confession that you may not be privy to. I am aware of a particular situation which involved someone I knew, this person was fenced from the communion table. I was made aware but the congregation as a whole was not. Speak to your minister, I'm sure he can counsel regarding your concerns.
 
Thank you all for your comments and guidance. It was with intrepidation that I placed this in the public domain but the matter was and is troubling me greatly. I had hoped to have seen my minister by now but this wont happen until next week (DV). I find being a christian is difficult and complicated, especially if you want to be confessional. It almost seems to me that it is better to know very little Biblically than to be perplexed by the complexities of life within the church of Jesus Christ. I want to live faithfully before the Lord, to enjoy the public worship of God and the means of Grace, to enjoy living within the covenant community in a way which brings glory to God and edifys one another and to see the gospel spread by the preaching of the Word. Yet here I am with my conscience greatly troubled and confused as how I am to live before God in this circumstance. The articles have been useful and will be prayerfully read and considered. Again thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top