Those convinced of the confessional Presbyterian & Reformed view of close/confessional communion might find themselves conscience-bound by the Word of God to abstain from participation in an improperly administered sacrament. 

The usual standard for admission to the Lord’s Supper in Orthodox Presbyterian Church congregations (and in congregations of other NAPARC denominations) is that the would-be communicant have a credible profession of faith in the gospel, live penitently, and be a baptized member of a gospel-believing church. The confessional Presbyterian & Reformed view of close communion or confessional communion is not widely known or understood today.  Below, this close/confessional view is described in contrast to usual OPC practice, and some Scriptural and doctrinal support for it is presented.
The OPC BD 2.B.2. states “The session shall examine the candidate for [communicant] membership to assure itself so far as possible that he [or she] possesses the knowledge requisite for active faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, relies for salvation on the work of Christ alone, is trusting Christ for salvation, and is determined by the grace of God to lead a Christian life.”
The OPC DPW 3.C.3. states “The minister shall then declare who may come to, and who are excluded from, the Lord’s Table according to the Word of God…. to invite all who are right with God and his church, through faith in the Lord Jesus, to come to the Lord’s Table. If you have received Christ and are resting upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to you in the gospel, if you are a baptized and professing communicant member in good standing in a church that professes the gospel of God’s free grace in Jesus Christ, and if you live penitently and seek to walk in godliness before the Lord, then this Supper is for you, and I invite you in Christ’s name to eat the bread and drink the cup.”
The OPC DPW 4.A.1. states “Only those may be admitted to full [Supper] communion in the church who have been baptized and have made public profession of faith in Jesus Christ.”
The OPC DPW 4.B.2. states “The minister shall then require the person to profess publicly his Christian faith by giving assent to these or equivalent questions:

Do you believe the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, to be the Word of God, and its doctrine of salvation to be the perfect and only true doctrine of salvation?
Do you believe in one living and true God, in whom eternally there are three distinct persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit—who are the same in being and equal in power and glory, and that Jesus Christ is God the Son, come in the flesh?
Do you confess that because of your sinfulness you abhor and humble yourself before God, that you repent of your sin, and that you trust for salvation not in yourself but in Jesus Christ alone?
Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ as your sovereign Lord, and do you promise that, in reliance on the grace of God, you will serve him with all that is in you, forsake the world, resist the devil, put to death your sinful deeds and desires, and lead a godly life?
Do you promise to participate faithfully in this church’s worship and service, to submit in the Lord to its government, and to heed its discipline, even in case you should be found delinquent in doctrine or life?”

According to the above sections of the OPC BCO, as I understand it, and as is my experience of usual practice in OPC congregations, would-be participants are generally admitted to the Lord’s Supper on the basis of meeting several requirements:

Having received Christian baptism.
Having made a [credible] public profession of faith in Jesus Christ.
Living penitently [ie, not in unrepentant sin], seeking to live in a godly way.
Being a communicant member in good standing [ie, not under censure] of any church that “professes the gospel of God’s free grace in Jesus Christ.”

Specifically, the public profession of faith in Jesus Christ required of those who would be communicant members of the OPC includes several distinct affirmations:

Belief in the whole Bible as God’s Word.
Belief in the Bible’s teaching of salvation to be perfect and the exclusively-true teaching of salvation.
Belief in the Trinity and Jesus Christ’s identity as God the Son incarnate.
Confession of one’s sinfulness, self-abhorrence, humbling before God, and repentance of one’s sins.
Confession of one’s trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation.
Acknowledgment of Jesus Christ as one’s Lord.
Promise to serve Jesus Christ entirely, to forsake the world, to resist Satan, to mortify sin, and to live in a godly way.
Promise to faithfully participate in the church’s worship and service.
Promise to submit to the church’s government and to heed its discipline in doctrine and life.

In addition to these things required of those admitted to the Supper in OPC congregations (as explained above), Scripture requires that those admitted to the Supper express affirmation (according to their ability) of the doctrinal standards of the church, not holding any principled objections to or disagreements with its teachings.
This includes a requirement that those admitted to the Supper express an understanding of the meaning and nature of the Supper (for example, as explained in OPC DW 3.C.2 and WCF 29.1, 7; WLC 168, 170), particularly Christ’s real, spiritual presence to those who participate in a worthy manner by faith, so that they are really spiritually nourished and strengthened by Him in the Supper. It may be the practice of some OPC congregations to require this, but it is not explicitly required in the OPC BCO (as far as I can tell).
Read More
Related Posts:

I think that point can be argued in an explicitly Scriptural way. Although, I don’t suppose ‘religion’ establishmentarians necessarily disagree with that point. What I think there is disagreement about is the criterion by which we should discern the respective assignments (to church and to civil government, concerning ethics), and what those assignments are.

Read Part 1 in the previous post.
In whatever way the English Dissenters/Nonconformists in the 1600s, the American Presbyterians in the 1700s, and Neocalvinists in the 1800s might have presented a Scriptural case against civil establishment of the church, I think Charles Hodge’s argument is a sound one.
Some Reformed establishmentarians, however, try to argue for—not the civil establishment of a single church institution/denomination, but rather—the civil establishment of ‘religion,’ whether that is conceived in broader Nicean orthodox Christian terms, or in relatively more narrow Protestant, or specific Reformed terms.
While I have highlighted the implied concern of Hodge’s argument regarding faith and worship, I take one of the main concerns of establishment of ‘religion’ to be ethics.
If we characterize part of Hodge’s argument as a sort of “exclusion” or “regulative principle” argument (viz, discipline in faith and worship are assigned the church, not to civil government, and therefore forbidden to civil government), and this is accepted arguendo, this nevertheless seems to leave open the question regarding ethics. The issue might be put this way: isn’t discipline regarding ethics assigned to both church and civil government, although the means of discipline differ?
For example, theft is a matter of ethics, the discipline of which is assigned to the church, and yet discipline regarding theft is also assigned to civil government. So, why does this not extend to some, if not all, other ethical matters, even including those that overlap with matters of faith/heresy and worship/idolatry, such as blasphemy? In light of this, we can raise this fundamental question:Is there any Scriptural criterion by which we can discern which ethical matters are assigned to civil government for discipline (if the set of ethical matters is not simply identical to those assigned to the church)?
As I understand it, many advocates of civil establishment of ‘religion’ employ a criterion of “public-ness”. So, for example, one may hold private blasphemous opinions and even privately worship in a blasphemous manner, but one should be civilly prohibited from “publicly” blaspheming, say, by publishing a book that says belief in God is stupid, dangerous, and evil.
The following is how Hodge’s Scriptural argument addresses this issue.
First, as an aside, notice that Hodge includes an initial 4th point (which may be said to concern sphere sovereignty) that I do not include in my quotation because it seems to me its character as a Scriptural point is not made explicit by Hodge. It focuses on the point of different particular ends ordained by God for these distinct institutions, so that the fact of their having the same general end does not permit the inference that they are assigned to identical matters.
I think that point can be argued in an explicitly Scriptural way. Although, I don’t suppose ‘religion’ establishmentarians necessarily disagree with that point. What I think there is disagreement about is the criterion by which we should discern the respective assignments (to church and to civil government, concerning ethics), and what those assignments are.
Second, I think Hodge’s last point about the coercive means instituted for civil government is the key to recognizing the criterion by which we can discern which ethical matters are assigned to civil government. (This is so, even if Hodge does not himself draw this out explicitly, but restricts himself to how we discern what is not assigned to civil government.)
Briefly stated, we may reason from Scripture on the issue like this: given the explicit institution of civil government in Genesis 9 by way of affirming the principle of proportionality in retributive justice, we must infer that the authorization of responsive coercion repeated in Romans 13 is restricted to the wrongdoing of prior initiation of coercion (aggressions) against persons and property. In other words, proportionality entails not only to what degree/extent coercion is used, but whether it is used at all. And to use coercion against non-aggressive immorality is disproportionate and violates the sword power authorized by God for civil government.
That, then, is the Scriptural criterion by which we can discern which ethical matters are assigned to civil government, and it’s the way Hodge’s argument, although requiring that elaboration, applies to not only establishment of a single church institution, but also to establishment of ‘religion’ concerning civil enforcement of ethics, or a public morality.
Gregory Baus is co-host of The Reformed Libertarians Podcast. He is a confessional Presbyterian living in Northumberland, Pennsylvania. This article is used with permission.
Related Posts:

Hodge says “the only means which [civil governance] can employ to accomplish many [duties proposed by establishmentarian, such as suppressing heresy and preventing false worship], [namely, by coercion], are inconsistent with the example and commands of Christ [concerning faith and worship]; [and inconsistent] with the [liberty] of Christians, guaranteed in the Word of God (i.e., to serve God according to the dictates of one’s conscience)….”

In 1863 Charles Hodge summarized how we Scripturally argue against civil “establishment” of the church in 3 points.
First, he says the proper task or duties of the church and civil governance “must be determined from the Word of God. And when reasoning from the Word of God [on these points], we are not authorized to argue from the Old Testament [old Mosaic covenant] economy [or administration] because that was avowedly temporary and has been abolished, [instead, we] must derive our conclusions from the New Testament. We find it there taught:
(a) That Christ did institute a church separate from [civil governance], giving it separate laws and officers.
(b) That [Christ] laid down the qualifications of those officers and enjoined on the church, not on [civil governance], to judge [which men in the church meet those qualifications].
(c) That [Christ] prescribed the terms of admission to, and the grounds of exclusion from, the church, and left with the church its officers to administer these rules.”
Second, Hodge says “the New Testament, when speaking of the immediate design of [civil governance] and the official duties of the magistrate, never [suggests] that [magistrates have] those functions [related to religious belief or practice that establishmentarianism proposes]. This silence, together with the fact that those functions are assigned to the church and church officers, is proof that it is not the will of God that they should be assumed by [civil governance].”
Third, Hodge says “the only means which [civil governance] can employ to accomplish many [duties proposed by establishmentarian, such as suppressing heresy and preventing false worship], [namely, by coercion], are inconsistent with the example and commands of Christ [concerning faith and worship]; [and inconsistent] with the [liberty] of Christians, guaranteed in the Word of God (i.e., to serve God according to the dictates of one’s conscience); [as well as] ineffectual to the true end of religion, which is voluntary obedience to the truth; and [are] productive of incalculable evil. …By enjoining [duties concerning faith and worship] upon the church, as an institution distinct from [civil governance], [the New Testament] teaches positively that they do not belong to the magistrate, but to the church.”
Gregory Baus is co-host of The Reformed Libertarians Podcast. He is a confessional Presbyterian living in Northumberland, Pennsylvania. This article is used with permission.
Related Posts: