Communion

I have made Sora's blood boil by posting the anti-paedocommunion poem by the Insane Calvinist Poppy. I am going to post some of my own reasons about why I am against it in a few days, but in the meantime, here is some stuff by Calvin and McKnight to chew over.

"We only contend for the true and legitimate constitution of the
Church, which requires not only a communion in the sacraments, which
are the signs of a Christian profession, but above all, an agreement
in doctrine (John Calvin, Institutes Bk.4, ch. 2, sec. 12).

"For everyone to be admitted to the Lord's Supper, without
distinction or selection, is a sign of contempt that the Lord cannot
endure. The Lord himself distributed the supper to his disciples
only. Therefore anyone not instructed in the doctrine of the gospel
ought not to approach what the Lord has instituted. No one should be
distressed when his Christianity is examined even down to the finest
point when he is to be admitted to the Lord's Supper. It should be
established as part of the total state and system of discipline that
ought to flourish in the church that those who are judged unworthy
should not be admitted." (John Calvin, "Letter on Various Subjects"
from Calvin's Ecclesiastical Advice).


"How often have I heard, how often have I read, some such language as
this: —"Who can forbid a child of God to come to his Father's table?
Who dare stand between the child and the Father's table?" All this
seems, I have no doubt, to those who utter it, very conclusive, and,
often to others, very devout and very charitable; yet it is in
reality very shallow and deceptive. It is, however, so often and so
confidently uttered, and is withal so plausible, that good men and
good minds are carried away. We do not always think; the
sensibilities obtain the mastery, and in very simplicity we are
deceived. The doctrine of open communion is popular, and if our sole
object were to add to our numbers, we would of course adopt it.

"To our own table we have a right to invite whom we please, but not
to a friend's. In that case we do not consult our own feelings, but
what may be agreeable to the host. When we invite to the table of the
Lord we are to be regulated by what may be acceptable to Him. This is
triumphantly met by —'We invite a child of the Lord.'

"1. Friend, how do you know this? The Lord alone searches the heart.
Open communion, at the very outset, invades God's province. We may
believe a man to be a Christian, but we do not know it, so as to make
that knowledge the ground of action in the Church. Hypocrisy is often
more flashy and imposing than humble piety. Jehu is ostentatious
of 'zeal for the Lord,' and Judas of care for the poor.

"There is no Presbyterian, who knows his own principles, who ever
thinks of making regeneration the condition of membership in the
Church. He accepts him who witnesses a good confession, sustained by
a corresponding practice, and treats him as a child of God, till by
transgression he falls from his place.

"2. If we know a man to be a child of God, it does not follow that he
is to be admitted to fellowship in the Church. Paul instructs the
Thessalonians, 'If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note
that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet
count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.' Here is
one whom Paul will own as a brother, and will have the Church to own,
and yet his present conduct, his refusal to submit to inspired
counsels, excludes him from fellowship. The open communionist, to be
consistent with himself, would stand up before Paul, and demand, 'How
dare you forbid God's child access to his Father's table!'

"Close communion, in excluding from fellowship in the Church and in
breaking of bread, does not deny a spiritual relationship to Christ;
but open communion, in making regeneration the condition of
fellowship, pronounces a very unwarrantable and uncharitable sentence
on such as are excluded. God's strokes are safer than man's kisses."
(William Sommerville, Reformed Presbyterians and Open Communion).

"There are those who feel that by the practice of Close Communion we
are claiming to be better than other Christians. Such a view is based
on a total misconception of the entire subject. As we have already
seen, the question of character is not at issue. Christ takes care of
that. We have nothing at all to do with this aspect of the case,
except perhaps indirectly by implication. That matter is handled in
the Supreme Court, to which reference has been made, and in no other.
As to whether those whom we exclude from the Lord's table are better
or worse at heart than we are, we have no means of forming a final
judgment. God alone knows that. As Christians they may be far
superior to us who are sitting in judgment on their public profession
and their conduct; oftentimes, no doubt, they are; at all events, let
us hope that they are never worse. But that question, as we have said
repeatedly, is not in the balance. What we have to do with is the
profession the communicant makes, and the way he lives. Christ does
His part by looking into the heart; He expects us to do ours, and He
tells us that the way to do it is by taking account of faith and
conduct. What He entrusts to our care we ought to do. We ought to do
it in the spirit of meekness and humility, but we ought to do it. For
having done, or not done, what we ought to have done, the King, when
He comes in to view His guests, will hold us responsible. The work of
the Lower Court will be reviewed in the Court of last appeal, where
the test is, and always has been, that a man 'be found faithful'
(1 Cor. 4:2)." (W.J. McKnight, Concerning Close Communion).

PS. If you read Emeth's blog, you may have already seen this.