Sure; but since the stress in Scripture is examine oneself, such additional matters must be a matter of prudential wisdom. It is on a wrong bases if some tradition is deemed necessary beyond "this is the way in prudence we have always done this for thus and so reason".
The same way they know if your outward profession of faith is genuine - they don't. They can only provide the opportunity to do so and judge the outward appearance.
It is also stressed that Church rulers must give account of their actions (or inactions) in office.
Very true, but in which case their judging your worthy or unworthy doesn't amount to anything new, since they were already making those outward judgments anyway.
And what constitutes inaction? And what is the measure for sufficient actions to be found faithful? This gets back to the rub in all these conversations.
Insofar as is biblically lawful, sure. Making doctrines out of the commandments of men, requiring more than God requires, etc. No.
Indeed. This is why it is specially suited to the session to determine the needs of their people. Their spiritual condition and conditionING. If a people are still on milk (and, providentially, that may be the case for a congregation, which is not a matter of right/wrong, necessarily). There are so many factors to consider, which is why there is not only not a direction in our standards on a required frequency, but not in Scripture, either, nor a detailed regulation of preparation, though earnest and sincere preparation is certainly required! When a person unacquainted with me, who does not local-church-covenant with me, implies I’m unable adequately to prepare for the LORD’s table, I must ask where they received this special knowledge? On the other hand, if I get too big for my britches, and think I’m almost there by way of preparation, I must be humbled and exclaim, “Who is sufficient for these things?”
Good question (I have appreciated all of your inquiries for their sincerity!). I would say there are 2 things:
Nothing constitutes inaction, that's why it's called inaction
Seriously though, there must be some way to measure their service or there wouldn't be references to "elders that rule well" (I Timothy 5.17) or "Obey them that have the oversight of you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account" (Hebrews 13.17).
Example. To be 'active' and faithful is regular elder visitation sufficient or must there be some special examination before every instance of the Lord's Supper?Nothing constitutes inaction, that's why it's called inaction
Thank you Andrew. So if those two items are being met in the majority of the congregation over a period of time, you are convinced that an eldership should gradually move to a more frequent observance, all the way to the ideal of weekly?
Yes. Such corporate sanctification would be evidence that the congregation is prepared to approach the Lord's Table more frequently. But I think the same argument for moving from 1 to 2 to 4 to 6 to 12 to 52 should allow for moving from 52 to 12 to 6 to 4 to 2 to 1. Weekly observation justified by "because we've been doing it that way for a long time" should be just as objectionable as quarterly observation justified the same way.
I see them as the same thing (though I would substitute "regular" for "special"). And I would suggest an elder can "visit" (examine) one person/family briefly in conversation after worship while another might need a much longer (and private) visit at their home. Still, apart from the Lord's Supper, regular visits by elders is beneficial in innumerable ways. I particularly liked being in a congregation where elders were "assigned" certain individuals and families - sometimes called the parish model I believe but really shadows the wisdom of Jethro at the end of Ex.18 (especially vv.21-22).
So to be clear, regular elder visitation is sufficient to clear them in their duty and they do not have to check on everyone prior to every communion?
No, I do not think "regular elder visitation is sufficient to clear them in their duty." The duty of overseers to carefully watch (I believe the Greek in Hebrews 13.17 is literally "be sleepless") over the souls of those placed in their care, a duty which goes beyond checking off that they've visited the congregants before coming to the Lord's Table.
We're not communicating obviously so I will let this drop.
I'm sorry I couldn't give you the simple answers your questions seemed to be asking for.