Closed communion - as doctrine

I'm not so sure. Three events occurred that night: the Passover supper, the footwashing, and the instituting of the Lord's Supper. Judas was clearly present for the first two, but it's not clear at all that he had not already left before the last event.

One thing to remember, the dipping of the sop is not part of the Lord's Supper. A review of the accounts in the gospels puts this act after the passover feast. And right after he gives it to Judas, Judas leaves.

Neither am I, as a deacon in my church. But the church, acting as the church, may certainly do so. Indeed, by failing to exercise judgment in this area, the church fails to carry out Paul's admonition to the congregation at Corinth to "guard the ordinances." (I Cor 11:2)

Although I hold to closed communion, my church does not, and when I serve the elements, I do not insert my own views but carry out the church's wishes.

Even OCers restrict the Lord's table in some fashion or another. It does not allow just anybody to participate. Having conceded the argument that some restrictions are necessary and proper, then we are now simply debating the extent of those restrictions.

 

...And this is a result of the evolutions of tradition through the ages. We see how Jesus commanded His disciples to do this often in remembrance of Him.

We see how Paul notices how the Corinthians have been treating the remembrance of Jesus' death on the cross as just some time to eat. Paul explains to these people that partaking unworthily has caused some people to be sick or die? Why? Because Jesus does not like it when people reverence Him in a false manner, just like taking His name in vain.

If we're going to take a moment to remember Jesus' body and blood, we don't stuff our faces, we don't make fun of the substances, we don't giggle, and we don't do it while our mind is off on a tangent.

On that note, there is nothing "mystical" or "magical" about communion or the communion moment. The pastor does not have the power to summon God's attention and generate an environment where God judges people more so than usual.

The point of communion is to remember Jesus, not create an environment where people are timid and must make sure they confess all known sin to participate or face the wrath of God, or wonder if they should not participate and face embarrassment of their peers who will assume a major sin in one's life. Yet, I have seen more communion services where the entire time is spent not talking about Jesus and what the elements represent but about how one can be judged for participating unworthily. Maybe if pastors would focus more on remembering Jesus, people will not participate unworthily because they will focus on Jesus, which is the whole point of communion.

 

One of arguments for closed communion is tied to church discipline. I ran across the following quote from Dr. Paige Patterson, President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

At a Baptist Distinctives Conference at Southwesternk Dr.Patterson was asked, in a question and answer time, about local church communion. Below is his answer:

Patterson: "What church are you a member of?"
Student: "Westwood Baptist Church"
Patterson: "If I come to Westwood and you offer me communion I won't take it. Not because I think you are not saved. Not because I think Westwood is not a New Testament Church but because I do believe that the table is where church discipline was carried out. . . Nobody's name was erased as such, but rather they were forbidden to come to the Lord's table because they were out of fellowship with the church. Now nobody else's church can know that about me. Of course I won't be out of fellowship anyway, but some might. . . But there's no way to know that. So I am a closed communionist in that regard."

 

Here is a quote from Dr. George M. Savage, who was president of Union University, Jackson, Tennessee (my alma mater) for many years in the early 20th century. It is excerpted from a treatise he wrote on I Cor 5:11, titled "Communion."

First, here is the scripture passage:

Dr. Savage writes:

 

So what those of you who practice closed communion are telling me is that even though Christ died for me and I've been washed in the blood, I'm not saved enough to take communion with you, because I'm not a member of your church???????

I thought it was only Church of Christ folks who thought like that.

 

And one more:

William L. Brown:

 

Notice how the logic of closed communion from the quoted people seems to come from the idea that the pastor is the one who has to make sure that everyone who partakes partakes worthily. Where is that in the Bible? Why doesn't the pastor just remind people of the risk of partaking unworthily and let each individual judge themselves and decide for themselves?

The closed communion idea seems like landmarkism. :saint::1_grouphug:raying:

 

Paul's admonition to "guard the ordinances (I Cor 11:2) was written to the congregation at Corinth, not the pastor. This is a corporate responsibility, since the Lord's Supper is a corporate observance.

Most Landmarkers I know are closed communionists, but not all CCers are Landmarkers. I doubt if Dr. Patterson is one.

One other point: I hold that the Lord's Supper is restricted to baptized believers. Will you allow one to participate who has not been scripturally baptized? Such as sprinkled? Or who believes in baptismal regeneration? Will you permit one to participate who attaches sacramental value to communion? In direct conflict with Baptist belief? Will you allow a known prostitute to participate, despite her claim to be a believer? Will you allow one who has been disfellowshipped from another Baptist church to participate?

Do you understand the implications of a "yes" answer? It means you will allow communion to be observed by some in an unworthy manner and will do nothing about it. And you will allow communion to be observed in a state of disunity among those present.

If the answer is "no," then I'm afraid you've lost the argument over restricting the Lord's table. You now favor some restrictions and we're just debating over which ones.

 

Tom, I'm not sure that is what Paul meant here. The newer translations render this verse as "hold firmly to the traditions," or "holding to the teachings," or something similar. Not saying you are wrong, and I actually agree this was an admonition to the entire church. However, I rather doubt that it was a commandment to police the participants at the communion table.

 

Makes no difference. Jesus gave the teaching responsibility to the local church when he commissioned it: "...teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you." That would include doctrine and practice, with the ordinances among them.

 

I believe this passage refers to the individuals responsibility to partake in a responsible manner, not a warning to the congregation OR pastor to insure that everyone who partakes is "worthy". That idea would contradict the whole teaching of not judging one another for someone would have to make the determination of who was worthy or not.

And explain to me why one would need to be baptized to take communion? Baptism isn't a requirement of salvation. Nor is communion. One is a sign of obedience and the other a remembrance. Neither are requirements.

Got scripture? I was baptized by full imersion, but I can't prove it. I'm not even certain the church I was baptized in when I was 7 is still in existance. You gonna tell me I need to be rebaptized in order to take communion? (Unlike my mama, I don't think there would be anything wrong in being baptized a second time, but I can't see a scriptual basis for a second baptism for any reason, much less in order to become a member of a local church just so I can take communion)

Lets take them one at a time.

Scripturally baptized. While the vast majority of scripture describes a full imersion baptism, just where are we given specific instructions on the matter?

And let me tell you about prostitutes. Lots of 'em are known by rumor. Rumor has no place in the congregation. And if she does participate, who recieves the punishment? She does! Nothing in the scriptures remotely suggests that one person is punished for the sin of another.

Disfellowshipped? Let me tell you. There is a certain church in my county that is baptistic by belief though associated with no denom whatsoever. Well I should say was. Because what happened at this church was a split over financial matters. It was complicated enough that it took a jury to decide that pretty much everyone involved had done something wrong. Not illegal, not necessarily sinful, just matters not handled properly. Before the church closed its doors several members were disfellowshipped. Some had merely voiced an opinion.

You tell me. How long should we keep those people from taking communion?

 

I believe that ALL those who are born again should be able to fellowship together including participating in communion together regardless of differences in minor beliefs.

While I realize that most families have many members that they never see and don't want to see, the members of God's family should all love one another and love fellowshipping together despite differences.

 

"minor beliefs". I suppose that excludes Calvinists and Doctrine of Grace adherents from participation in your view ?