THE FENCING OF THE LORD’S TABLE

Yesterday at church we had a young man visiting us who I spoke with after the service. He seemed like a cool fellow, and I asked him where he was from, whether this was his first time visiting our church, etc. He mentioned that he was astounded at our church’s communion policy, having visited several churches for nineteen years. He said he was searching for a church home, and that he was going to go home to study our communion policy to see if he “qualified” for communion.

I assume the young man was being tongue-in-cheek, and was not really interested in studying our church’s communion policy. But I bring this up because his astonishment is yet another example to me today of how the current trend among American evangelicals is to empty communion of all its meaning. (Communion signifies union with Christ and fellowship with one another.) In most American evangelical assemblies, there is no fencing of the Lord’s Table at all–anyone who wants some bread and grape juice may come forward.

This got me thinking of the various views of fencing the Lord’s Table. So, what follows, then, is a description of the various views of what is called “fencing the Table.”

WHAT IS “FENCING” THE TABLE?

To fence the Lord’s Table simply means to bar from partaking of communion certain people/groups. The current trend among most evangelicals is to not bar anyone from the Table. This is usually because most evangelicals have a disdain for doctrine in the name of tolerance and acceptance. It comes off as “unloving” to many to fence the Table at all. Yet, fencing the Table is vital, not only for the preservation of the meaning of the sacrament of Holy Communion, but also for the protection of the person who is barred.

There are different views concerning the fencing of the Table:

(1) Closed Communion. This is the position of the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and conservative Lutheran churches (such as the Missouri and Wisconsin Synods). Closed communion allows only those who are members of that particular faith tradition to partake of the Supper. For example, Catholics may not partake of the Supper/Eucharist anywhere else other than a Catholic church; the Orthodox may only partake at an Orthodox church; and a Lutheran may only partake at that particular Lutheran tradition (i.e., Missouri-Synod Lutherans may only partake with Missouri-Synod churches, etc.).

(2) Close Communion. This position is similar to (1) above. In fact, many consider them the same. Close communion allows communion between churches that are in fellowship with one another only. For example, if a particular Lutheran church is in fellowship with another Lutheran church from a different tradition, then one would be allowed to that Table.

(3) Qualified Open Communion. This position allows for people who hold to the essentials of the faith to partake at another church that shares in the essentials. For example, a Reformed person may partake at a conservative Anglican church, as I have in the past. This is my position as well, and the position of my local church.

(4) Completely Open/No Fencing of Communion. This is the view that the Table should not be fenced at all.

PROS AND CONS OF EACH VIEW

It is not the purpose of this article to defend my particular view, but rather to simply demonstrate the necessity of fencing the Table in some particular way. I do not believe the Scriptures are clear on the subject, and in my particular federation of churches it has been left up to the local consistory how to go about fencing the Table. Since view (4) completely empties the Table of all its meaning (since even open unbelievers are welcome in this view), we may quickly discard this view and consider the pros and cons of views (1)-(3).

PROS AND CONS OF CLOSED COMMUNION.

Pros: This view has a very high regard for doctrine, since it sees communion as signifying complete unity of the doctrines of the faith. This view also grants to the leadership more control over the Table and allows them to keep the purity of the Table guarded to a significant degree.

Cons: Closed communion comes off as divisive to the larger Christian community, and treats those who aren’t of the same Christian tradition as lesser Christians. Furthermore, this is always tied into the view that only that particular church is *the* true church, and that in it alone is found the fullness of truth.

PROS AND CONS OF CLOSE COMMUNION.

Pros: Allows for fellowship to be extended toward those of the same denomination/Christian tradition. It also has a high regard for doctrine and the purity of the sacrament of the Table.

Cons: Nonetheless, close communion still comes off in an exclusivistic fashion to those who share the essentials of the faith, and yet differ on secondary doctrines. It furthermore still almost always leads to the idea that we only have fellowship with those of our particular expression of Christianity.

PROS AND CONS OF QUALIFIED OPEN COMMUNION.

Pros: This view, in my opinion, best guards the meaning of the Table–namely, union with Christ and fellowship with each other, while avoiding the pitfalls of the other two views. It recognizes that Christian fellowship is doctrinal fellowship in the *essential* doctrines of the faith, and that there are charity and patience toward differing secondary doctrines.

Cons: The leaders of the the local church, under this view, nonetheless, cannot test every potential partaker of the sacrament to ensure that the Christian tradition they come from is in unity with the essentials of the faith, since there are nuances in each particular denomination.

Whatever view the particular local church embraces, there will always require much prayer, patience, and charity. Both the purity of the sacrament and the protection of those who partake (or do not partake) must be considered.

A BRIEF SCRIPTURAL CRITIQUE OF LUTHERANISM ON THE ATONEMENT AND PERSEVERANCE

A Lutheran brother wrote to me attempting a critique of Calvinism, specifically on limited atonement and perseverance of the saints (which he incorrectly equated with “once saved always saved”). Here is my response:

————————————

Brother ——–, peace in our Savior.+

I confess that it sounds to me like you are indeed teaching something that I would call “temporary faith.” If I understand Lutheranism correctly (and I think I do, having studied it for two years), you are saying that someone can truly be born again, and lose that faith. This is also taught in Koehler, et al.

What I see in Scripture is I think a helpful distinction that we Reformed make between covenant and election. The passages which warn of falling away are indeed *not* hypothetical. I agree it’s a real possibility. However, we also have passages (as I know you affirm) which speak of God keeping us.

To sum these up, we would say that it is indeed possible for someone to fall out of the external covenant, but not out of true saving faith. For example:

“They went out from us, b/c they were never reall of us. If they were of us, then they would have remained with us.” –1 John

I would have to ask my Lutheran brothers who the “us” is in the above passage.

Further, Jesus says “No one can come to Me unless the Father Who sent Me draws him. *And I will raise him up at the last day.”

IOW, there is a connection between all those who are given faith (drawn by the Father), and those who persevere until the end. But Lutheranism says that those who are drawn can lose that faith. Yet this verse teaches otherwise.

In Acts 13:48 we are told “all who were ordained to eternal life believed.” IOW, if someone believes, it is b/c they were ordained to eternal life.

In Romans 8, we are told that all those who are predestined, are called, justified, and glorified. But Lutheranism says someone can be called, yet lose justification.

Our Lord tells us that He gives His Sheep eternal life, and that no one can snatch them out of His hand, and that this is the Father’s will. Yet Lutheranism teaches that some can be Sheep, and then turn into goats. (Not trying to sound disrespectful here.)

So, I think it is important that we continue to dialogue in love over this.

Also, we affirm as Reformed that there is a sense in which Christ died for all, in that the offer is for all those who hear. But we deny an atonement that doesn’t atone, and we affirm that He died for His Bride in a special, saving way in that He did not for others.

For example, we would say there is a sense in which the gospel is not for all. It is not for the righteous. It is for those who know they are sinners. And our Lord says this:

“I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

When Jesus uses the word “call,” surely He is speaking of His entire ministry, and His entire work of salvation. The gospel is good news for those who see their need of it. Our Lord explicitly says He did not come to call those who are self-righteous. Even on the surface, this is an excellent case for limited atonement.

Regarding perseverance of the saints (which is different from OSAS), I would also list the following verses in addition to those mentioned above:

(1) “You have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable.”

(2) “He who has been born of God cannot go on sinning, for the seed of God remains in him.” (But Lutheranism would have us believe that those who have been truly born of God *can* indeed go on sinning, and become unregenerate again.)… See More

(3) In Hebrews, the qualitative distinction is made specifically in chapter 6, where warnings are issued, yet the writer says “though we speak like this, dear friends, we are convinced of better things concerning you…things which accompany salvation.”

(4) On the last day, our Lord tells the goats that “I *never* knew you.” But in Lutheranism, the Lord did indeed know them for a time, and they knew Him for a time. But He says He “never” knew them.

Of course, I could list more. But, suffice it to say that Reformed theology (at least in its orthodox form) does not downplay the warnings, but at the same time we see the Scriptures always making a qualitative distinction between those who merely profess the faith, and those who actually possess faith in Christ. What God starts, He finishes. And this is excellent news.

covenant baptism

One of my wife’s friends wrote to me asking about covenantal infant baptism. I responded:

There is much info I could give, and a study of baptism and who belongs to the church is a very deep study. So, the info I give you below is merely intended to spur you and your hubby on to further study of the issue.

In Genesis 17, God makes a covenant with Abraham, saying that he and his descendants belong to Him, and that the sign is circumcision. This covenant is worked out progressively, and the different covenants God makes in the Bible all are connected to it.

Since God makes a covenant, then, with *families*, and not just individuals, children of believers have always been included within this covenant. In fact, baptism as around in the Old Testament was done to families of Gentile proselytes as well.

We see the same thing in the New Testament. There are various household baptisms, especially in the book of Acts.

What we need to remember is that the debate between Baptists and those who believe in covenant baptism of infants is really not about baptism. It is about who belongs to the church.

Baptism is just icing on the cake.

Baptists want to see a verse which says “thou shalt baptize thine infants.” We respond that there are numerous things in the Bible which are expressed by *inference*, and do not leap off the page. For example, the very essence of our faith, the doctrine of the Trinity, is something that is inferred and pieced together in Scripture. The doctrine is not expressed plainly and clearly in a “leap off the page” type sense. It is a true doctrine which is pieced together from various texts.

It is likewise with infant baptism in the covenant.

We see God’s covenant in the OT, and we see it in the NT. We expect to see Jesus calling infants of believers “members of the kingdom”, as in Luke. We expect to see Him lay His hands on them with a covenantal blessing. We expect the household baptisms. We expect the apostle Paul calling children of believers “holy” and “clean” as opposed to “unclean” in 1 Corinthians 7:14. We are not surprised when we see David in Psalm 22 saying that he knew the Lord since his mother’s breasts.

Further, we understand that baptism, even as circumcision, was not a guarantee of salvation. It brings us into the covenant, along with our children. Even as Jacob and Esau were both covenant members, yet only Jacob showed himself to be a true believer, it is the same with us and our children.

I could go on, and I’m sure even the above is much information. I hope it merely whets your appetite to spur you and your hubby on to further study.

For further reading, I recommend:

Children of the Promise: The Biblical Case for Infant Baptism by Randy Booth, published by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.

Jesus Loves the Little Children, by my pastor, Daniel Hyde.

Both are easy reads and I recommend them.

Please let me know if you have any questions about this e-mail. I hope it wasn’t too much info!

The Lord bless you and yours.

Baptists and the paedocommunion argument

Many of my Baptists friends believe it is inconsistent that the Reformed and Presbyterian churches confess and practice infant baptism but reject infant/toddler communion, yet wait until the covenant children are old enough to examine themselves to partake of communion. Is this a valid assertion? A friend wrote to me asking this, and here is my response:

Thanks for your question brother! This is a very complex topic, and one which I have studied three times, all of which I came out continuing to be convinced of the traditional Reformed position of anti-paedocommunion (credo-communion).

First, we must note that what our Baptist friends have given us here is not an argument, but an assertion. They need to demonstrate point-by-point how *infant baptism supposedly leads to paedocommunion.* It is not enough to assert it. They need to prove it.

That being said, at the expense of sounding simplistic, I would note to your Baptist friend the following:

(1) With baptism, we do not have any prescriptive (commands) statement of *who* or *how* to baptize. With the Table, we do, and it is made explicit of *how* and *who* in 1 Corinthians 11.

(2) Along these same lines, when we understand the nature of the Table, being union with Christ, it is quite likened to the marriage bed with our spouse. Much more than just a knowledge “about” our spouse is required for the act of love-making. Indeed, we renew our vows every time we make love with our spouse, and we make sure we are walking in love with our spouse. It is the same with the Table. Not only do we renew our vows to God through Christ, but we also renew our covenant with one another as the Body of Christ. It is much more than just a mere profession of faith, but careful, self-examination and a willingness to repent.

(3) Along the lines of #2, Baptists misunderstand the nature of the sacraments. Baptism is the sacrament of initiation into the covenant, whereas the Table is the sacrament of continuation and renewal. The nature of the Table is indeed quite different from the nature of baptism. One could draw many points here…baptism is administered once, the Table frequently; the requirements for baptism are different for the Table, which even our Baptist friends admit, since they would admit that there are times that Christians must be excluded from the Table if they are in unrepentant sin, etc. So, the Baptists fail to see the differences between the two sacraments.

(4) At the expense of sounding simplistic again, baptism could be likened to our public marriage vows (done only once), and the Table could be likened to the renewal of our marriage vows in the marriage bed (hopefully done quite frequently!).

(5) It is highly doubtful whether children partook of the Passover itself, at least not liturgically (nor did women unclean on their period, at least not liturgically). The liturgy required three goblets of wine to be drunk! Yet, we don’t find the OT saints thinking that the children were not part of the covenant just b/c they didn’t partake of the Passover. Even today, the Jews still consider the males born into the covenant, and to be partakers in the fullest sense at the age of 12.

(6) Another analogy would be our citizenship in the United States. We are full citizens, but we are not voting citizens until age 18. So, no one would dare say that, just b/c children cannot vote, that they are not full citizens. And further, it would be a perversion of our voting privileges to just vote indiscriminately without carefully weighing the candidates…examining them.

(7) In fact, this is precisely how traditional covenant theology has always understood the covenant. God has given the sacraments to us and to our children, all in the appointed time. To give the Table before the appointed time is a misunderstanding of covenant theology. I find that both the Baptists and the Federal Visionists make the same mistake, and both misunderstand covenant theology.

There is much more that could be said, but I hope this helps. Cornelis Venema has recently written a book on this topic called Children at the Lord’s Table?. Although I would differ with some of his assessment on the section on history, I nonetheless also found this to be a helpful book.

Hope this helps!

my new blog

Hey everyone, since my Reformed Oasis blog is stuck in cyberspace, here is my new blog. Welcome everyone!

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!