The Lord's Supper

[PuritanZealot]

Just as a side note I do feel it worth mentioning that whilst we Baptists might exclude someone from the Lords Table because they are not a member of our wider church (our deacons always say 'we welcome those who share our faith from companion churches or congregations' meaning Gospel Standard or Strict Baptist) we DO have fellowship with members of other churches. My Pastor is vice chairman of the Trinitarian Bible Society so for him to say he doesn't regard non GSSB christians as 'true' christians would put him in something of a bind as he goes about the evangelical work of the society. Also a friend of mine who is an elder/minister (awaiting pastoral calling) in our church is the chairman of the Free Grace Evangelical Society, so again if he were to say those African or Indian Christians he meets weren't 'real' christians his work would be almost pointless.
I know this is a little off point but I got the feeling some Presbyterian's regard us as totally insular and disregarding of any other denominations. A lot of my church are quite good friends with a local Presbyterian/Evangelical church in Salisbury that is totally different to our own.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Sean,
Yes, ignorance is sin. But if ignorance alone were a disqualification, no one could partake, "as if the Supper were for those who might be free from sin. Rather, we who are invited to the Supper, com[e] as guilty and polluted sinners." Therefore, as pertains to the Standard's use of "ignorant persons," we need to confine that description to the appropriate designees. And the Baptist, qua baptism, doesn't qualify.

The implication about other points of "doctrinal ignorance" is directly germane to the question, because you claim that error on the point of baptism is disqualifying. If you do not disqualify a visitor to your church on the basis of other errors, for example dispensationalism, its important that you explain just what it is about a baptismal stance that mandates a bar, relative to other errors.

You are simply wrong about our testimony on baptism being "nullified" by admitting a visiting Baptist to the Table. Their children won't be participating in the Lord's Supper, and neither will mine. Their children won't be invited because they aren't even members of any church; mine ARE.

Your comment implies that anyone who is a member in ANY church is subject to the SAME conduct of discipline in our congregation as are our own membership. But this is simply not true. I will impose discipline on your children, who come over and play at my house under my supervision for several hours--BUT, I will NOT do so in exactly the same way as I will with my own. I will not proceed to severe consequence with the same dispatch as I might with my own child. Why? because I do not know your child, or what rules-of-the-game he has learned to operate under. I will refrain from telling you (unasked) how to do business in your own house, even if I think you are dropping-the-ball. I should tell you if I gave your kid a "time-out" for the last 3-hours, and isolated him for egregious misconduct, and let you deal with it as you see fit.

The point is, I don't treat your child and mine in the same way at my house, even though I keep the same STANDARDS for your children and mine under my roof. And the reason is patent--your child isn't MINE. It seems like you would predicate your treatment of all people who come into your church as though they were subject to the immediate expectations of house-members. Surely, there are conceptual/conceivable differences between

1) our members (who are already bifurcated into communicants and non-communicants);
2) communicant members of churches with which we share confessional affinity;
3) members of churches that preach the gospel;
4) members of churches that do not have a pure gospel commitment;
5) not-members anyplace;
and perhaps some other divisions.​

Your position is built on the principle that there is NO legitimate difference in how you APPLY the Standards, given a variety of initial conditions.

Consider your freemason/PCA example. First, you said that in the case of your member who became a Mason, you would immediately (!) suspend him from the Table. Really? Would you even give him a chance to resign first? Would you take the time to open his eyes to the mistake he made? How many of our membership even know that the OPC or RPCNA has ever judged these two organizations (the Church and Masonry) incompatible? Wouldn't this require a time commitment to deal with his blindness? Of course, the answer to that last question is "yes."

The fact that a PCAer might not be under discipline in his home church for being a Mason (which is probably not a fact that I am aware of), doesn't make me responsible for his "undisciplined" situation--no more than I'm responsible as a parent for the fact that your child may be "undisciplined" in an area I think he should be; I don't expect him to take my last-name, in order for me to treat him as cordially as one of my own. I indeed shall hold my children to the strict-standards of conduct which they know, and ostensibly agree to. But I'm going to grant (in advance) your family has standards that are close enough to mine for recognition.

If visitors belong to a real, recognizable church--it has the MARKS of the church! even if imperfectly--other than trying to tell if they know what it means to be a Christian, and learning what their disciplinary status is, I am NOT going to ask them whether they eat/refuse-to-eat "meat sacrificed to idols," belong to the Masons, deny the third use of the law, believe in a literal millennium, or would refuse to baptize their children if they belonged to a church that expected them to.

I'm sorry, but I do not see Baptist-visitor folk as in any way able to impose discipline on the Table in this church, much less subject it to the standards of their own church. They are submitting to discipline, for the moment, through this church and its officers. THEY are the ones giving up their separatist convictions, by receiving Communion at the hands of the "unbaptized," the Word from the lips of an unbaptized preacher, submitting to a man who couldn't even be a member in a Baptist church. I'm willing to let Christ be their Judge, if their "crossed-fingers" is blameworthy.

 

[Kaalvenist]

Sean,
Yes, ignorance is sin. But if ignorance alone were a disqualification, no one could partake, "as if the Supper were for those who might be free from sin. Rather, we who are invited to the Supper, com[e] as guilty and polluted sinners." Therefore, as pertains to the Standard's use of "ignorant persons," we need to confine that description to the appropriate designees. And the Baptist, qua baptism, doesn't qualify.

The implication about other points of "doctrinal ignorance" is directly germane to the question, because you claim that error on the point of baptism is disqualifying. If you do not disqualify a visitor to your church on the basis of other errors, for example dispensationalism, its important that you explain just what it is about a baptismal stance that mandates a bar, relative to other errors.

Rev. Buchanan,

Again, the issue here is not doctrinal ignorance or opposition to any Scriptural doctrine -- as expressed in the OP, the issue is action -- whether one who refuses to baptize their children (or have their children baptized) should be refused the Lord's Supper. You segued from my response to your "long-established principle of jurisprudence that criminality involves 'intent'" (that sins committed in ignorance are still sins, so that one cannot claim that individuals are exempt from keeping the moral law because they don't know that it requires or forbids certain things), to trying to address what the Confession and Larger Catechism mean in forbidding the "ignorant." Because the OP addresses action and not belief, it falls to us to address what is meant by the latter disqualifier(s) -- being wicked/ungodly/scandalous. If this does not refer to continuing in impenitent violation of one or more of the commandments (given the context given by the above-quoted sections from the Confession), I would ask to what it might refer. Remember, we do not admit people to the communicant membership of the church (or to the Table) because we know or think they are regenerate, but because of their profession of faith, and because of their walk being consistent with their profession. If someone is continuing in the impenitent violation of the second commandment (or the fourth, or the sixth, or the eighth, etc.), then they should not be admitted to the Table. Unless it does mean something else, in which case I would ask again, to what does it refer?

Your comment implies that anyone who is a member in ANY church is subject to the SAME conduct of discipline in our congregation as are our own membership. But this is simply not true. I will impose discipline on your children, who come over and play at my house under my supervision for several hours--BUT, I will NOT do so in exactly the same way as I will with my own. I will not proceed to severe consequence with the same dispatch as I might with my own child. Why? because I do not know your child, or what rules-of-the-game he has learned to operate under. I will refrain from telling you (unasked) how to do business in your own house, even if I think you are dropping-the-ball. I should tell you if I gave your kid a "time-out" for the last 3-hours, and isolated him for egregious misconduct, and let you deal with it as you see fit.

The point is, I don't treat your child and mine in the same way at my house, even though I keep the same STANDARDS for your children and mine under my roof. And the reason is patent--your child isn't MINE. It seems like you would predicate your treatment of all people who come into your church as though they were subject to the immediate expectations of house-members.

I'm not saying that you should impose an act of discipline upon a member of another church. But even in a concept of merely "restricted communion" (rather than "close communion"), it is still up to the session to admit individuals to the Table (rather than individuals admitting themselves), in keeping with WCF 29.8. If I as a member in the RPCNA came to your congregation during communion time and desired to partake, it would still be your responsibility as a session to determine whether to admit me, rather than letting me admit myself. If, after a brief conversation with me, you determined that I was in the habitual practice of some known sin, or was in neglect of my known duties in some way, it would not be possible for you to impose an act of discipline upon me -- that belongs only to the courts which have jurisdiction over me (my session, presbytery, and synod). But you could still refuse to admit me to the Table. It might be advisable to afterward contact my session, explain why I was not admitted, and politely suggest that they take your discoveries under consideration with regard to my own case. But as you cite numerous examples of cases where we ought to treat individuals differently; so too, you must recognize that there is a difference between imposing a judicial act of discipline, and refusing to admit someone to the highest privileges of church membership.

I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. (1 Cor. 5:9-11)

Even if you cannot impose an act of discipline, you are still called upon not to eat with (particularly in the observance of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper) those who call themselves brethren, who are in the practice of some known sin.

If you have not read it already, I would recommend to your perusal an article by G. I. Williamson -- who has spent most of his ministerial career in the OPC, with a brief stint in the RPCNA; so that he should be acceptable to both of us. If you acknowledge the propriety of restricted communion as opposed to open communion (or the principle of admitting individuals to the sacrament rather than allowing them to admit themselves), then you must acknowledge the propriety of examining them as to whether they are living in a course of sin.

On A More Adequate Fencing of the Lord's Table

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Sean,
The practice that GIW describes--visitors meeting with the elders ahead of time, to determine the propriety of serving them, with an emphasis on determining their profession, membership, and disciplinary status--is exactly the methodology that is in place in my congregation for years, before my arrival. So yes. I do believe in an examination. The issue has to do with viewing this specific "course of sin," which you/the thread defines in this case as refuses to baptize their children.

He says nothing specific about denying a Baptist from sharing at their Table, in fact it would seem as though para.7 all but explicitly allows that in many circumstances a Baptist would qualify. So, unless you know he explicitly refuses to share Communion with them, I do not see how the article much furthers the discussion.

Para.4 mentions the "false church" as described by the Belgic Confession; but I think GIW would have plain reservations of labeling a Baptist church, qua baptism, as one and thus refusing the Table on that basis. We think the Baptist church is guilty of one, partial error (of not baptizing infants) out of the description of the full-blown "false church" (which paradigm is patently Rome). Do we think the error is serious? Certainly. But one of the way we demonstrate that WE are not the separatists, is by opening the door to the baptized from our side, not by closing it (as they must) to the "unbaptized."

I think that your insistence that this is a question to be decided on the basis of a specific "(non)action" rather than "doctrine" is just going at the issue in the wrong way. I don't know what you think of "tithing" (it isn't my position), but can you "justify" one church refusing to commune an otherwise agreeable Christian, simply because he belonged to another church that differed on this: they did not teach a biblically-mandated tithe--a sin of omission in their eyes? They are judging that point as a persistent, impenitent violation of the first table of the law... I can't justify it, not because I'm with the "sinner" here, but because it is a case of "straining at gnats, and swallowing camels."

I guess, at bottom, I'm just not willing to draw this line at Table-fellowship with (many) Baptist-brethren. I fail to see how such an approach will commend our churches to good, albeit misguided Christians, who are in them. It is anachronistic (at this point in time) to identify them all as "scandalous," for their separatism. The truly separatist/schismatic among them will not eat Table with us, on principle. I think we should be obviously, recognizably more "catholic" than that, on principle.

 

[Kaalvenist]

Sean,
The practice that GIW describes--visitors meeting with the elders ahead of time, to determine the propriety of serving them, with an emphasis on determining their profession, membership, and disciplinary status--is exactly the methodology that is in place in my congregation for years, before my arrival. So yes. I do believe in an examination. The issue has to do with viewing this specific "course of sin," which you/the thread defines in this case as refuses to baptize their children.

He says nothing specific about denying a Baptist from sharing at their Table, in fact it would seem as though para.7 all but explicitly allows that in many circumstances a Baptist would qualify. So, unless you know he explicitly refuses to share Communion with them, I do not see how the article much furthers the discussion.

Para.4 mentions the "false church" as described by the Belgic Confession; but I think GIW would have plain reservations of labeling a Baptist church, qua baptism, as one and thus refusing the Table on that basis. We think the Baptist church is guilty of one, partial error (of not baptizing infants) out of the description of the full-blown "false church" (which paradigm is patently Rome). Do we think the error is serious? Certainly. But one of the way we demonstrate that WE are not the separatists, is by opening the door to the baptized from our side, not by closing it (as they must) to the "unbaptized."

Rev. Buchanan,

My reference to Rev. Williamson's article was in vindication of the principle of restricted communion -- I did not know where you stood on that issue, as your statements (as far as I had seen) could have been made by an open communionist. Obviously, the question of the session having the obligation and power to restrict who comes to the Table (both within and without the congregation) is a more fundamental point than this. But I repeat my former assertion: If you acknowledge the propriety of restricted communion as opposed to open communion (or the principle of admitting individuals to the sacrament rather than allowing them to admit themselves), then you must acknowledge the propriety of examining them as to whether they are living in a course of sin. If the "wicked/ungodly/scandalous" does not refer to those who continue impenitent in the violation of one or more commandments (whether by commission or omission), then what does it mean?

I think that the discussion of being "separatists" (especially as contrasted with "schismatics") would be an interesting one; but outside the parameters of this thread and forum. Perhaps in the Church Order forum some day.

I think that your insistence that this is a question to be decided on the basis of a specific "(non)action" rather than "doctrine" is just going at the issue in the wrong way. I don't know what you think of "tithing" (it isn't my position), but can you "justify" one church refusing to commune an otherwise agreeable Christian, simply because he belonged to another church that differed on this: they did not teach a biblically-mandated tithe--a sin of omission in their eyes? They are judging that point as a persistent, impenitent violation of the first table of the law... I can't justify it, not because I'm with the "sinner" here, but because it is a case of "straining at gnats, and swallowing camels."

I'm not sure how many times it must be mentioned. Not merely the Larger Catechism, in its minute delineations of what are and are not sins, but in the Confession of Faith itself, contemning or neglecting the sacrament of baptism is called "a great sin" (28.5). It seems that, in the eyes of the Westminster Assembly, this was not a minor or minute point -- not to be ranked with tithing of mint, anise, and cummin -- but among the weightier matters of the law (which ought to be done, and not to leave the other undone).

I guess, at bottom, I'm just not willing to draw this line at Table-fellowship with (many) Baptist-brethren. I fail to see how such an approach will commend our churches to good, albeit misguided Christians, who are in them. It is anachronistic (at this point in time) to identify them all as "scandalous," for their separatism. The truly separatist/schismatic among them will not eat Table with us, on principle. I think we should be obviously, recognizably more "catholic" than that, on principle.

There are many things that we do that do not commend our churches to good, albeit misguided Christians. But that is not the standard by which we are to guide what we do -- rather, the Word of God (in this case, 1 Cor. 5:9-11, quoted above); and subordinate to that, our doctrinal standards (in this case, the places in the Confession and Larger Catechism quoted above). I understand that there are practical considerations to everything, and I do not claim that practically working-out this principle is simple or easy; but such considerations ought not to have greater weight with us than the teaching of Scripture, or the teaching of our subordinate standards.