Lord's Supper: Going Over the Fence

[Michael]

Let me present two scenarios for discussion:

1. There is a church visitor who is either not baptized or not a covenant member of a bible believing church [or both]. They partake of communion when it comes around simply because they see everyone else doing it. The warning was given by the pastor but the visitor either missed it or just didn't comprehend it to some degree. The underlying premise here is simple ignorance.

2. Same starting point: There is a church visitor who is either not baptized or not a covenant member of a bible believing church [or both]. They hear the warning from the pastor but feel overwhelmingly compelled to partake when the bread and wine come around. They were genuinely moved by the service and desperately want to be with Christ so they take and eat/drink.

Please articulate the peril or lack thereof in these two cases...

 

[Contra_Mundum]

1. I don't think, if Joe gets to Judgment Day without Christ, that "I wasn't paying attention" will clear him. Of course, he's going to have many other things to regret that were NOT done in ignorance. If he comes to saving faith, then he will have his sin covered by Christ. We will repent of ALL the sin (and sins) God brings to mind. If the sin of "unworthy partaking" is the sin that lays him on a sickbed, or takes him from this life, it wouldn't be unjust. Playing with fire will get a person burnt, no matter that he played the fool.

2. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. To run heedless into danger, despite the grace of a warning given from Christ, by his minister, is not of faith. It is of presumption. All sin may be forgiven, but when this is pointed out to him he should repent of his rash, thoughtless, disorderly conduct.

 

[KMK]

Let me present two scenarios for discussion:

1. There is a church visitor who is either not baptized or not a covenant member of a bible believing church [or both]. They partake of communion when it comes around simply because they see everyone else doing it. The warning was given by the pastor but the visitor either missed it or just didn't comprehend it to some degree. The underlying premise here is simple ignorance.

2. Same starting point: There is a church visitor who is either not baptized or not a covenant member of a bible believing church [or both]. They hear the warning from the pastor but feel overwhelmingly compelled to partake when the bread and wine come around. They were genuinely moved by the service and desperately want to be with Christ so they take and eat/drink.

Please articulate the peril or lack thereof in these two cases...

Just for clarity's sake, are you referring to the peril of the visitor? Or, are you implying a peril to the minister for allowing the visitor to partake?

 

[Archlute]

FYI, neither baptism nor "covenanting" are prerequisites for taking the Lord's supper, but evangelical faith in Christ's person and work. Baptism and external membership are important issues, but I have always seen (and practiced) the fencing of the table being centered around the issue of a person's belief, allowing that secondary issues will eventually get worked out with the session.

 

[jwithnell]

It would seem that someone who was "genuinely moved" would want to do what is right ... if he has not evidenced faith by joining a Bible believing church, he should seek someone (likely from the session) after the service to talk about his standing before God and not go ahead and participate.

I doubt that you could take participation anyway as some kind of "unpardonable sin," but it does perhaps show a callousness toward what Christ's church is saying is right. As a new believer, I was pretty stubborn and quick to intellectualize everything, but I remember desperately wanting to participate correctly within the church and learning from the leaders what was right.

 

[TimV]

Pastor Myer, do you think that any uncircumcised ever ate of the Passover meal, and would that have had anything to do with our modern confessional churches commonly restricting communion to communicant member in good standing?

If he comes to saving faith, then he will have his sin covered by Christ.

I thought we were saved by our personal covenant faithfulness, that will justify us at the Last Day

 

[smhbbag]

Pastor Myer, do you think that any uncircumcised ever ate of the Passover meal, and would that have had anything to do with our modern confessional churches commonly restricting communion to communicant member in good standing?

This is an excellent lens to use for the issue. I'm sure you had this text in mind:

Exodus 12:48

If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.

For this reason, maybe I'm between some of the posts here, but I think fencing the table regarding baptism is much more central than local church membership.

There are plenty of lawfully baptized folks who are not in covenant membership with a local church for good reasons. They may have been removed from their former church's membership list after moving, and are still visiting churches, or many other scenarios.

The argument for requiring baptism is quite strong with that OT example, but I think local church membership should be on a case-by-case basis. Either way, the person in question needs to respect the authority of the church administering the Lord's Supper, and should not participate until he has covered the matter with them.

With regard to the OP, the question of the peril faced by such sin, Bruce's answer is great.

 

[Michael]

Just for clarity's sake, are you referring to the peril of the visitor? Or, are you implying a peril to the minister for allowing the visitor to partake?

Peril or consequence of the visitor (again, if any exists). The minister does his job in announcing the qualifications of communion but he may have no way of knowing who the visitor is, his/her background, etc, etc.

 

[Peairtach]

Let me present two scenarios for discussion:

1. There is a church visitor who is either not baptized or not a covenant member of a bible believing church [or both]. They partake of communion when it comes around simply because they see everyone else doing it. The warning was given by the pastor but the visitor either missed it or just didn't comprehend it to some degree. The underlying premise here is simple ignorance.

2. Same starting point: There is a church visitor who is either not baptized or not a covenant member of a bible believing church [or both]. They hear the warning from the pastor but feel overwhelmingly compelled to partake when the bread and wine come around. They were genuinely moved by the service and desperately want to be with Christ so they take and eat/drink.

Please articulate the peril or lack thereof in these two cases...

Partaking of the Lord's Supper is a serious business. The inappropriate partaking is associated with chastisement even unto death in I Corinthians 11. But it isn't an unforgiveable sin, and there may have been some peculiarities about the Corinthian situation and the nature of their sin that led to the particularl chastisement(s) in their case. God may and does reserve the right to chastise as He sees appropriate for the individual.

The cases of chastisement in the Corinthian church were because they ate and drank unworthily and did not discern the Lord's body I.e. (a) They were at war with other members of the Lord's body and failed to confess and seek forgiveness for this sin and/or (b) They did not treat the Lord's Supper which involves the symbols of the Lord's body and blood with the respect and reverence that is appropriate, but treated it like an ordinary meal, along with squabbling.

People should be baptised and members in good standing with a bible-believing church, but what the Corinthians were up to, those who were saved or unsaved, seems much more serious, than the cases you cite.

I'm not a ruling or teaching elder.

There should ideally be a table upfront or a separate area to which communicants go at the appropriate time to make a clear division in the congregation. This avoids this kind of event/misunderstanding. If someone who is known to be barred or unadmitted to the Table approaches, an elder can speak to them, in the lobby or out the back.

In case 1. some people walk off the street plain ignorant, don't listen to what the pastor's saying and assume that everyone's meant to do what everyone else is doing.

In case 2. where there is knowledge it should be explained - where possible - who and what the Lord's Supper is for, the saved in good standing, not those following their emotions, and the person instructed in the Gospel.