The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Communion

What is the proper way to handle a non-Christian who partakes of the Lord's Supper? Do we somehow bar them from the table (and how would you do that without disruption)? Or do we let the non-believer take the repercussions for their action and let the Lord deal with them?

Also, I was wondering if, as people who believe in particular redemption, a reason why it is so sinful for non-Christians to partake of the Lord's Supper is because they may or may not be elect.

My Pastor fences the table pretty clearly. With that warning, it is basically the responsibility of the person.

The reason why a nonChristian should not take communion is the warning (see verse 30 as to the effect).

Now, I heard from some biblical-based Pastors that the warning is just for the church in Corinthians, and does not apply for today. I cannot find reason for that understanding.

Marie,

In a church which is administered by a plurality of elders it's the their responsibility to guard the Table. In the worship service the pastor should declare a warning for those who would be doing so in an unworthy manner. The elders and the pastor can only restrain those from participating who they know are living without assurance of their salvation and in an unrepentant lifestyle. Paul also tells us to examine and judge ourselves. He places this responsibility on each individual. If we do not partake of the sacramental symbol of the Lord's death worthily, we share in the guilt of that death.

Men may partake in an unworthy manner, but when they do, the curse of the Lord comes on them, and the Table is not profaned, but kept pure by the Lord. It is, after all, His Table. Worthily does not mean we have to be righteous in ourselves but rather that we are living in true saving faith and are truly sorry for our sin.

In the Corinthian passage you quoted, Paul ‘fences’ the Table of the Lord. And how do we do that when we celebrate the Lord’s death through the Supper? Just like Paul did, you tell them! You declare the parameters of participation—believers only who have been forgiven—you warn them not to partake if they don’t qualify—and you command them in the name of the Lord to examine themselves by his word and Spirit.

On a More Adequate Fencing of the Lord's Table

Fencing the Lord's Table


Wes

Wes,

Thanks for the two articles. IMHO, Williamson makes a serious error when he requires more than what the inspired Apostle Paul wrote concerning the qualifications necessary for individuals to partake of the LORD'S Table. Thus, I believe that Jack Richardson is true to the biblical mandate.

I also believe it is a far more grievous sin which the local congregation and to some extent, the entire Church commits when it forbids one of Christ's sheep from partaking of the Supper when the invitation is given but those who have not met with the Elders prior to that call are forbidden to partake of that sweet communion of the Lord. The "curse" is that which falls on the individual and not the congregation nor the Supper itself when a clear "warning" is given from the pulpit.

Secondly, Williamson makes a second error when he states as a requirement:

Is it not possible that an individual can be a true believer and follower of Christ yet belong to a denomination that is other than that which he would require? I am thinking immediately of yourself, whose congregation belongs to a denomination which cannot qualify as one that is "sound in doctrine and discipline". This faulty reasoning can also be seen if we were to reverse the above example; i.e., one could be a true believer and member of a local congregation which is errant but belongs to a sound denomination. And you can include all the various combinations that are possible as well.

What is important, is that the biblical injunction be followed and nothing added to it, 1) as does the "Confession", which Williamson quotes, which has appended, "or be admitted thereunto" and 2) the "tradition" to which he says, "an earlier practice that was virtually universal among the Reformed Churches". Thus the invitation to the Supper is to be made to ALL who profess Christ and who have examined themselves rightly. The local congregation can only forbid those individuals who are under its care and are known to be under discipline and/or who are known to be unrepentant of a known sin. Likewise, those who are KNOWN to be under discipline of another congregation are to be likewise forbidden. But other than this, there is no warrant nor authority given to forbid individuals from partaking of the Supper.

QUESTION: I have often wondered how far the Elders of a congregation would go to prevent someone from partaking of the Supper? For example, let's suppose a woman is known to be living in sin and is under discipline of the Session or Consistory and she has not repented of her sin. What actions should/could the Elders do to prevent this woman from participating in the Supper? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Wes,

The elders in our church administer the elements with me. We simply would not extend the elements to the woman.

SDG,
Dan

As an elder in a reformed church,I personally have found the biggest problem being in correcting the error many seem to fall into on this question.That is not so much the problem raised but Christs sheep being put under a false sense of insecurity,thinking they are unworthy to participate because they fail.I know some very godly people who have had this problem,they make the mistake of looking to thier sin instead of the saviour.As with many things this subject should be dealt with grace IMHO.

Dan,

I think you meant to address your reply to me (Pilgrim) <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />, but thanks for replying nonetheless. The answer(s) to this question I posed, re: woman under discipline, would of course, depend upon HOW the Lord's Table is administered, i.e., the physical arrangements. If, for example, the elements are passed around by the Deacons across each pew or row of chairs, which is common in some congregations, then it would be near impossible to "fence the Table". On the other hand, if the Supper is setup with a table in the front of the church to which worshippers must get out of their seat and walk to the front, then there is a better opportunity to intervene.

However, in the latter situation or one similar, I still would like to know just how far the Elders would be willing to go and how far would it be prudent to act should such an individual insist on advancing, even after being told she cannot partake of the Supper? I'm proned to look at the "worst possible scenario" in such situations in preparation. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> Would you or your Elders be willing to physically remove an obstinate individual from the church?

In His Grace,

You must go to a smaller church, then?

At my parents' church, the pastor says the Lord's Supper is for all those who acknowledge Christ as their Lord and Savior. However, there is no statement about partaking of it in an unworthy manner, whether it be by nonbelievers or believers. At the church I recently left, they did give the warning, which I thought was great of them to do.

Pilgrim,

In most of the churches I have attended part of the warning was that the believer should have been united with a local body of believers (church, but not necessarily the current church). And in all the churches I have attended, membership required one to be baptized. Do you believe that it is necessary to be part of a church and/or be baptized to take communion? I think both of these are clear commands in the New Testament, so if one was not baptized and/or not united to a local body of believers would you consider this a "a known sin"?

John

No! There are just too many mitigating circumstances which must be considered as to why a person isn't a member of a local body, e.g., there simply isn't a church that is sound in either doctrine and/or life, which would also explain in some cases why a person hasn't been baptized; particularly in the case where a person was converted as an adult and whose parents were not believers and hadn't submitted the person for baptism as a child. Of course, not to open a Pandora's Box here, but most Baptist churches don't recognize the legitimacy of infant baptism, and thus even though a person was baptized as an infant, they would require rebaptism by immersion, to which I have been opposed quite vocally here in the past!

Thus to summarily categorize either non-membership and/or not being baptized a sin I think goes beyond the teaching of Scripture. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

However, having said that, if such an individual had a desire to continue taking communion, let's say after the first incident as a visitor, he/she should surely be approached by the Elders and find out what this person's genuine interests are, etc. Only then, from the basis such gathered information could a church make a right decision to either allow or forbid the Supper to this person, IMHO.

In His Grace,

Pilgrim,

I concur with your observations about Williamson's comments. When I was a young man our church practiced what we called "close communion." This practice only allowed those visitors to be included who made prior request from the elders to participate. Those who requested to take part had to fill our a card declaring their home church, address, and current standing, along with the names of all family members who will take part. This card was then mailed to the elders in their home church showing they had participated in the sacrament when they visited our church. This was standard practice throughout the denomination years ago.

Even members in good standing who were visiting from churches in ecclesiastical fellowship who had not made this request were not permitted to partake. I guess you can see how much effort was being used to control that only members in good standing would participate. However I think that goes beyond what Paul is writing here. I think a clear warning should be issued and then having warned those who participate in an unworthy manner about the consequences the meal should be served.


Well, I don't think the elders would take the elements out of her hands physically. However, if she's sitting alone apart from other members the elders simply don't have to offer her the elements since both she and they know she must repent first and then come to the Table.

If she persists in taking the elements even when she's under discipline it may require further discipline which will lead to excommunication. Each case will require individual attention.


Wes

In our church, we have the congregation members come forward and line up. Then I pass down the line with the wine tray, while an elder follows me with the unleavened bread tray. In the situation you mentioned, the woman could come forward, but I wouldn't stop in front of her with the tray. This past Sunday we used intincture where the participants break off a piece of the bread held by my elder, then they move on to me and dip the bread in the cup, then partake.

Our system is not totally foolproof, however, because we also pass the trays down the rows sometimes. This is a practice that we are currently looking at. We are also going to consider weekly communion.

SDG,
Dan

Yes, our church would be considered a smaller church, about 120 in regular attendance. Another dynamic that figures in to the church, is that we are located in the country. The folks are down to earth, country folks, and all know each other fairly well, or are related to each other. There are few secrets safely kept in such a church. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/chatter.gif" alt="" />

SDG,
Dan

One of my most enjoyable and preferred methods of serving Communion is having a table with surrounding chairs up in the front of the sanctuary. The Pastor makes a call to the congregation to come forward to participate in the Supper. Worshippers then get up and find a place to sit around the table where a short "sermonette" is given and the elements are passed around the table by each person handing them to the next, etc. After they are finished, this group returns to their seats and another group is called to come forward. This is done until there are no more who come.

Not only does this create a worshipful atmosphere to partake of the Supper, but an intimate one as well. It also allows those not partaking a time of reflection as they observe. And last, it also affords the Elders a way to fence the table, since there can be an Elder placed at either end to observe who comes to the table.

Doubtless, there are many ways to administer the Lord's Table. This just so happens to be the one I like most of all the ways I've seen it done. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,