I’d say it falls in the second category: penitence/submission. As 1 John shows, one of the signs of a true disciple is love for the brethren. Just as one can’t be saved without trusting Jesus, one can’t be saved without loving others, because if we’re saved (and submitting) we’ll have the same kind of heart Jesus had.

Please notice that the sin concerning the Lord’s supper in Corinth had nothing to do with our modern doctrinal debates. What was at stake here was not an intellectual mistake (e.g., failing to deduce that the supper must be observed weekly, only on Sunday, etc.). Rather, the haves were neglecting/mistreating the have-nots in the supper (v. 22). They apparently ate before the poor even arrived (vv. 21, 33), and seem to have discriminated against the poor by not giving them the same generous portions of food they had. As a result, the rich were sated while the poor were still hungry.

In its context, “the body” (v. 29) means, not Jesus’ body on Calvary, but the church (cf. 10:17). These Christians failed to embody the unity that the supper symbolized. Instead, the haves were maintaining sociological distinctions in the church and were abusing the have-nots at the Lord’s table in the ways mentioned above.

So the sin here that so concerned Paul was disrespectful, unloving behavior. Again, it’s about the heart. His rebuke does not suggest that someone who honestly misunderstands something like the proper day or frequency of partaking is in danger of losing his soul.

If someone believes that it does, I would ask a question. This passage, as well as the gospel accounts describing the institution of the supper, shows that in the first century the Lord’s supper was observed in the context of an actual meal. Since conservative Churches of Christ have departed from this scriptural pattern, why wouldn’t their souls be at risk on that basis?

Thanks for the question, Ed. I hope these thoughts will help.