What does the Lord’s Supper mean to you? When is the last time you obeyed Jesus’ instruction in regard to observing the Lord’s Supper, “This do in remembrance of me?” In the first post, we discussed the four views on the Lord’s Supper. This post will elaborate on the preferred Memorial View.
The Meaning of the Lord’s Supper
The Lord’s Supper symbolizes the believer’s fellowship with Christ in 1 Corinthians 11:23-32. If we partake of the Lord’s Supper with unconfessed sins, we invite God’s chastisement. The Lord’s Supper also symbolizes our fellowship with the body of Christ in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17). The one loaf of bread used in the Lord’s Supper in the early church pictured the oneness and unity of the local church.
Participates in the Lord’s Supper
This is called fencing the Lord’s Table, i.e., allowing only believers who are in fellowship with Christ. There are two to three views on who is permitted to partake of the Lord’s Supper depending on how one defines “open communion.”
Open Communion
One view of “open communion” is anyone can partake of the Lord’s Supper if even an unbeliever. The other view of “open communion” is you do not have to be a member of that local church to participate in the Lord’s Supper.
Closed Communion
This view restricts participation to members only of the church serving the Lord’s Supper. Sometimes this is called “strict communion.”
Close Communion
This view states that you do not have to be a member of the particular church offering the Lord’s Supper. This view would define “open communion” as referring to offering the Lord’s Supper to the unsaved.
There is another restriction sometimes put on the participants of the Lord’s Supper. The participants must be baptized (by immersion) before taking the Lord’s Supper because baptism pictures salvation and is one of the first steps of obedience. This is Mark Dever’s view. Sam Storms took Dever to task over this view. Storms said that Dever would allow an Episcopalian to preach in his pulpit. What if Capital Hill Baptist Church had a Communion Service immediately after the Episcopalian preached, would Dever forbid the Episcopalian from taking the Lord’s Supper when Dever just allow the Episcopalian to preach in his pulpit?
Here is Sam Strom’s critique of Dever’s position:
In his recent post, Dever indicated that he planned on having an Anglican and a Presbyterian preach in his pulpit in the near future. In the comment section of his blog, one person said: “The implication . . . is that there are people whom you are happy to have in your pulpit but not at the Lord’s Table. That seems a little odd.” Yes, it does.
In a similar vein, another comment asked: “why would you let someone in unrepentant sin be teaching the flock at Capitol Hill?” Dever considers someone who will not get baptized by immersion guilty of unrepentant sin.
Finally, more directly to the point of this article, the question was asked: “If your Anglican . . . friend were preaching in your pulpit on a Sunday where the Lord’s Table was observed, would you exclude him from participating?” The answer, clearly, is that Dever would indeed exclude him from participating.
In fact, let’s suppose, just for the sake of argument, that the Lord’s Table is celebrated every Sunday at Capitol Hill Baptist Church (although I don’t think it is). This would mean that Dever’s Anglican or Presbyterian friend might conceivably preach a profoundly biblical message on the gospel of the dying and rising Christ and salvation through him alone, only to be told (if not in words then surely by the actions then taken) that he must sit to the side and refrain from receiving the elements that symbolize and embody the very dying and rising Christ whom he only moments before so faithfully and biblically proclaimed.
In this not-unlikely scenario, the visiting paedo-baptist might even reinforce the truth of the gospel message by pointing to the elements on the table before him, articulating with passion and humility how the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood, here symbolized by the bread and wine, have secured for all Christians forgiveness of sins and eternal life. He would then, I suppose, be led away from the elements and told that although he is no less trusting in what they represent than are his credo-baptist brothers and sisters, he cannot partake with them in the supper.
Both baptism and the Lord’s Supper are two important pictures of Christian responsibility and privilege that every Christian should practice in obedience to Christ.