In recent years a number of issues have been raised in Reformed Churches that seek to change the answer to the questions, "Who are to come to the Table of the Lord?" and "Who are to be admitted to the Table of the Lord?"

Reformed Churches have all historically practiced "guarded communion," sometimes called "close com­munion." Guarded communion is in contrast, on the one hand, to the "open communion" practiced by some churches, in which anyone who shows up is invited to participate in the Lord's Supper. On the other hand, guarded communion is also in contrast to some who have practiced "closed com­munion," that is communion closed to all but the members of the local church serving the Supper.

Since Holy Communion is the Lord's table, and not ours, Reformed teaching has held that it ought to be open to all seriously confessing Christians who are present, and at the same time it ought not to be offered to those who are clearly not confessing Christians. Thus the Lord's Supper in Reformed Churches is guarded by the Elders who are to have contact before the worship service with any visitors who might be interested in and qualified to participate with the congregation.

Since some in the Reformed community have fallen for the unbiblical idea of "infant communion," that is allowing non-confessing infants to participate in the supper, the whole issue of "who should and may participate," has been re-opened. It will be our purpose in this article to re-examine the biblical teaching and defend the historic Reformed practice of guarded communion. For almost two thousand years the guarding of the Lord's Supper has been called "fencing the Table," the idea being that unbelievers are to be fenced away from the Lord's Table.

There are several avenues by which to approach the question of fencing the Lord's Table. Not surprisingly, they all arrive at the same answer.

• First, there is the direct approach. Is there anything in Scripture by precept, example or teaching, that indicates that the table ought to be fenced?

• Second, what is the Lord's Supper and does the nature of the Supper indicate who is to participate?

• Third, what is the Church? And does Church membership have something to say about who is to participate?

• Fourth, how does church discipline impinge on who is to be allowed to partake of the Supper?

• A fifth line of teaching is the analogy with the Passover.

By way of introduction, I am sure you are aware that Heidelberg question 81 speaks of self-examination and that Q. 82 speaks of the Church's examination of our "confes­sion and life." Thus, we are bound by our confession to fence the Table by examining the confession and life of the individual who desires to participate in the Lord's Supper. The question ultimately is, what does the Bible say on this subject?

Is Fencing the Table Found in Scripture?⤒🔗

First approach: Does Scripture anywhere indicate that the Table is to be fenced outwardly (that is by the Church)? And the answer is, "yes indeed." The whole purpose of 1 Corinthians 11:20ff is to fence the table from illicit use. To think that Paul is doing anything but exercising his apostolic authority to say who are and who are not fit to partake, is to miss the forest for the trees.

So then, Paul's example in 1 Corinthians 11 is to fence the Table by an Apostle, a ruling officer of Christ's church. Also, in line with this, in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul also says in verse 31, "if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged." This clearly and obviously points to the need for someone else beside ourselves to inquire as to whether we are fit participants. Were this text in another context, it might be questionable to apply it to the Supper, but since it is explicitly in this context, it must apply primarily to judging our fitness for the Supper. The next verse (32) in 1 Corinthians 11 carries on this thought and therefore enforces our conclusion. If when we are judged, "we are chastened by the Lord,"  in anticipation of partaking of the Lord's Supper, this is for our good.

Therefore to say that fencing the Table is wrong, is to call that bad which Paul calls good. What some are asking for is complete "freedom of conscience." This is an Anabaptist idea, quite contrary to Scripture. Luther had it right when he said, "my conscience is held captive by the Word of God." No one is free to be his own judge; to claim that one is, is to deny God. In this line of thought also, we see the authority of the Elders of the church who "watch for your souls" and to whom we are to be in submission (Hebrews 11:17).

Some would defy the biblical principle that we are not in submission to God unless we are in submission to Christ's church through its elders. This is the typical Anabaptist position on this issue, which has also spilled over into modern Fundamentalism. It is hopelessly flawed because it sees each man as a law unto himself contrary to the fact that God has set some in the Church "apostles, pastors, teachers, administrators, etc." (1 Corinthians 12:28). Why? so that we may ignore and disobey them? God forbid!

What is the Lord's Supper?←⤒🔗

Our Second line of approach is through, "What is the Lord's Supper?" The point will be that the very nature of the Supper requires an exercise of mind and heart that is possible only for a certain group of people who are known through their confession and life. The Lord Jesus Christ clearly defines the Lord's Supper as Christians together eating bread and drinking wine in remembrance of Him. The words, "do this in remembrance of me," require of participants in this Supper a knowledge of what Christ has done for them in sacrificing His body on the tree, and a discernment that this is a sacramental memorial ("this cup is the new testament in my blood") of the fact that Christ's sacrifice really does fulfil the righteous judgment of God against our sins. The Lord's Supper is not a normal meal to feed the body, nor is it a re-enactment, or even re-sacrifice (as the Roman Catholics teach) of Christ's crucifixion which in itself merits part of our salvation (thus, masses for the living and the dead).

In other words, one needs to know and confess the truth about Christ's work, in order to rightly partake of the Supper, and one needs to live a life commensurate with that knowledge.

As Jesus said, he who confesses me before men, him I will confess before my Father in heaven, he who denies me before men, him I will deny before my Father in heaven.

Thus we ought to ask that those who wish to come to the Table first put their name on the dotted line by making a profession of faith in a Bible-believing Protestant church. If they have not made such a profession, they clearly do not understand the importance of what they are doing in partaking of the Lord's Supper.

The same is true with respect to their lives. Faith without works is dead. Anyone who claims to be a Christian but lives contrary to God's word is clearly deceiving himself by partaking of the Supper. This conclusion is reinforced by Christ's demand for a specific confession from His disciples before He goes to Jerusalem to be crucified. He does not simply say, "Well gentlemen, I hope you remember what I taught you, I am off to be crucified." No, He demands a confession of faith in Matthew 16, a confession that has a particular content, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." This is a confession that no Jehovah's Witness can make, nor can many other cultists or modernist "Christians." Yet, are we to allow them to make up their minds as to whether they are actually properly partaking of the Supper? No way!

What is the Nature of the Church?←⤒🔗

The third line of biblical teaching that leads to the conclusion that not everyone is to be allowed at the Lord's Table, is its teaching about the Church. While we could spend a good deal of time on the biblical teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ, I think a focus on one particular Scripture will be helpful to answer our question about fencing the Table.

This teaching is found in Acts 2, after Peter's sermon on Pentecost. We find here in Acts 2:41, that "there were added to them about 3000 souls." To ask, "How does Luke know this?" is to answer the question. They took roll. These people were officially added to the Church by adult and infant baptism. In other words, the Church was seen right from the beginning as an earthly organization with membership. This, not surprisingly, agrees entirely with Acts 1, which tells us that the roll was 120 when the church elected a replacement for Judas. The importance of the reality of church membership is further reinforced by the fact that in Acts 5:13 we are told that "of the rest, no man dared to join himself to them." We also know from Acts 20:7, as well as very early fragments of Church history, that the Church was jealous that only disciples be allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper.

Since, as we have just seen from Acts, church membership was no small item, it being reserved for those who gave real evidence of true discipleship, it logically follows that the early church already in Acts 20 was fencing the Table (this of course agrees with Paul's teaching on church discipline which is our final point below). When we go to the next verse in Acts 2, we find out exactly what the nature of church membership was.

These folks, continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine, and in fellowship and breaking of bread, and in prayers.Acts 2:42

Notice that every one of these elements of church membership is visible. Doctrine, or teaching, is preached, confessed and discussed; it is not only secret in the heart, especially the knowledge that people are "continuing steadfastly in" it. The same, of course, is true of Christian fellowship and worship — they require the presence of the person's body.

The conclusion is clear, if one is not openly a part of the confessing, fellowshipping and worshiping body of believers, we have every right to doubt whether he is truly a Christian at all, no matter what his private opinion of himself is. The church is not a private body or secret society, but an open, public body of confessors of the truth. The Lord's Supper is for the benefit of Christians, and they will be members of a true church.

Fencing the Table and Church Discipline←⤒🔗

The Fourth, and a very direct area of biblical teaching that requires outward fencing of the Table, is that of church discipline. The apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians 5, declares it a sin when the church tolerates the participation in the Supper by a man living in sin. He excommunicates the adulterer and specifically says, "Let us eat the feast (the Lord's Supper)" in purity, that is without the presence of this sinful person. To that Paul adds the shunning of such a person at the end of the chapter by saying, "with such a one, no not to eat." The best understanding of "no not to eat," is that it means joining such a one in eating an ordinary meal, though there are some that would limit it to the Supper. In either case, it would preclude us from accepting at the Supper of the Lord someone living in sin.

Only if we know the confession and life of those who partake, can we have any hope of knowing whether they ought to be included or excluded from the Supper. Further, the very fact that Paul brings up this issue of the Supper with respect to church discipline shouts loudly that the Supper is to be fenced from those who are not honestly confessing and living Christians. This is, of course, in full agreement with Christ's admonition about such persons, "let him be to you as a heathen man and a publican." In other words, do not welcome him to the benefits of Christian fellowship, and that would most certainly apply to the fellowship of the Lord's Table. In Christ's teaching here it is most obvious that the decision as to whether a person is to be treated as a Christian or as a publican does not belong to the individual, but to the Church.

Passover and Lord's Supper←⤒🔗

With respect to the fifth line of biblical teaching, the matter of participation in the Passover gives direct implication for the fencing of the Lord's Table. Exodus 12:43 (the very chapter in which the Passover is instituted) says, "No outsider shall eat of it." Period. Not much more needs to be said, except that Exodus 12:48 makes specific regulation for bringing a permanent sojourner with Israel into the people and qualifying them to partake of the Passover. He simply needs to fulfil the same requirements that the rest of Israel has fulfilled, "let all his males be circumcised," including of course his infants. Then he shall have the same privileges as the native-born, because he shall have obtained official membership among them.

This teaching, along with the fact that the Lord's Supper is instituted at the Passover meal and uses its elements, implies that there is a direct connection between the two and that what applies to one has application to the other (by the way the canard that the infants partook of the Passover is just that, a canard [old lie]). There is not one word in the Old Testament indicating that infants did partake, and the words "when your children in years to come ask, what do you mean by this meal," is clear indication that they did not participate. Otherwise they would have been depicted as saying, "what do we mean by this meal?"

In conclusion, the Bible, and the Standards of the Church which are based on it, require a fencing of the Lord's Table. It is for the covenant-keeping people of God.