closed communion

Bro James,

You keep bringing up straw men that are not apart of the conversation. This is a baptist forum, we are not talking about those who are not biblical in their faith or practice. You are a baptist and I assume a born again believer, yet you would exclude other, now get this, born again believers from taking the Lord's Supper in your church. Your church is not the Body of Christ, it is a part of the Body of Christ. No one fellowship encompasses the entirety of the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is made up of all genuinely born again believers in Jesus.

Again, you say a little leaven leavens the whole lump. What is the leaven? If it is unbelievers at the Lord's table then you have a little leaven everytime your church shares communion. I guarantee you have people on your church roles who are unregenerated. If the leaven is hypocrisy as the Bible states else where again I guarantee you have leaven in your fellowship. If leaven is stating something is biblical when it is not, then it is clear you have leaven---the leaven of the pharisees who were famous for adding to the Scripture their own traditions and requirements.

You must believe you are going to be a lonely man when you get to heaven. Brother let me tell you there will not be a table all by itself reserved for you and your local church.

Bro Tony

 

Brethren: There is a significant difference between knowledge and lack of it. When we hear a testimony of conversion as we accept members into a local congregation, and accept that testimony, we do not see the heart (I Sam. 16:7), but we do know there is a statement of personal faith and (for most of us at least) a valid believer's immersion administered by a church of like faith and order (either one already done, or one that church will conduct). For most cases we face on an on-going basis, the non-member's testimony has not been heard; their baptism has not been considered by the congregation; there has certainly been no reception into church fellowship (cf. Rom. 14:1; the command to receive under certain circumstances implies the right to reject under others).

Bro. Tony, I note you "judge" non-Baptists in your posts by saying that "any brother or sister" is part of the family and therefore welcome, yet assuming that we aren't talking about people other than Baptists. What kind of Baptists? Any approach to the Lord's table except that of asking members of the local congregation to examine themselves before partaking leads to one of two things: mockery, or judgmentalism. If a local church, a complete body belonging to Christ, with Him as Head and the Holy Spirit as the Heart and Bloodstream, comes together as a church (the context of I Cor. 11) to partake, and each member is encouraged to examine his/her own heart, and if a church is doing its job in evangelism and teaching rather than just adding numbers, any mockery will be done by the person who fails at that point. But if we open the door beyond that local body (and the very concept of
"body" demands the ability to assemble, a genuine unity of known members), we are asking for people whose testimony we have never heard, of whose baptisms we know little, and asking for division.

Remember the 3 basic negatives (closings) of I Cor.: no openly immoral person (known as such), ch
5; no one known to be lost, ch. 10; NO DISISIONS, ch. 11. How other than church communion or some sort of "judging" can we achieve the last? I prefer not to judge.

Best - Charles - Ro. 8:28

 

(One quick "P.S." - the basic issue here is not how broad our view of communion, but "What is a church" - enough for a whole different thread.)

Best - Charles - Ro. 8:28

 

Charles,

I clearly understand your point, I also noticed that you added to what the Scripture says in I Cor. 11. When the Lord Supper is shared, there needs to be a clear and biblical teaching on who should and who should not partake. It should also be espoused that as the Scripture says, "let each man examine himself, then let him partake". I do not accept your point of view and I do not appreciate the implication, nay, direct statement that any other view other than closed communion is a mockery and leads to judgementalism. You sir have made yourself the judge of who can and who cannot partake of the Lord's supper.

We clearly have a different view when it comes to the Lord's table as to who it belongs to. You must believe it is the local church, I believe it belongs to the Lord. I find it offensive that you and other closed communion advocates would have the audacity to stand in the way of a genuine believer and their ability to partake of the Lord's Supper.

One other thing your lack of understanding of my belief is clear when you say I judge non-baptist. I do not, I believe the family of God is bigger than the Baptist fellowships. I used that term along with Bible believers to show how silly it is to reject other Baptist as well as Bible believing Christians from communion.

You nor anyone else has shown that closed communion is the teaching or the practice in the New Testament. Why don't you just say this is what we choose to do. For you can search all day long and you will not find one (1) Scripture passage that teaches or even infers closed communion.

You say you prefer not to judge. Yet your practice of excluding another believer from partaking of the Lord's Supper is about as judgmental as you can get.

If a professing believer in Jesus who is not a member of our particular fellowship comes on a Sunday when we have the Lord's Supper, they will hear who can biblically, not denominationly, partake. They will be instructed from the Scripture to examine themselves. If they are right with the Lord, they are welcome to share in the supper. You might say how will you know if they are right. Impossible to know, I don't even try to know, because I am not their judge.

Bro Tony

 

Another strawman:

If a true believer, not a member of the assembly shows up at an assembly business meeting, would he/she be allowed to vote? Why?

Again, this discussion is not about judging the spiritual condition of a brother in Assembly X on the other side of the world who may be visiting a different assembly than the one of which he is a member.. Neither is it about judging the spiritual condition of Aunt Susie visiting from Kalamazoo. We are talking about the "picture", the "symbol", of The Body of Christ, which is His Assembly. If we allow those outside the Body to partake, we destroy the picture of "One"--kind of like Siamese Twins? The Body of Christ is not a mutation.

Again, closed communion does not harmonize with "universal assembly"--there is no such body.

We are dealing with the clash of two paradigms which cannot both be correct.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

More rhetorical questions:

Who kept the door to the Upper Room?

How does a New Testament assembly picture what took place that night?

How can there be at least three acceptable ways of repeating this memorial supper? i.e. If the first one was closed, how did it get to be open?

Can all of these "options" be acceptable to God?

If the correct pattern is not specified, why do we practice anything like the Lord's Supper?

If the correct way is given by example, why are we not following the example?

How about a little transsubstantiation--carried to the hospital bed?

Sorry for the convolution--a child can understand this principle.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Bro James,

You and I will never come to a place of agreement on this issue. I have learned that when the discussion has run its course, and when I ask to see one objective Scripture that teaches closed communion and I all get is subjective view points that have as of yet done nothing but continue to espouse your preference it is time to let it rest. You continue to do what you feel led of God to do. I will continue to practice what I believe the Scripture clearly teaches. I am glad this is an in-house debate, but it is one that will have to end here for me. I may return if I am given something from someone that clearly comes from the Bible and not their tradition or their subjective addition to the Scripture.

May the Lord give you a great day in Him tomorrow, and may His Spirit continue to illumin His Truth in our hearts.

In Christ,
Bro Tony

 

We have agreement:

we agree that we disagree--which is sometimes better than concensus.

The seeds are sown--let us see what comes up.

Shalom,

Bro. James

 

Bro James,

, Blessings,

Bro Tony

 

My dear Brother Tony - While you are probably correct in saying that we will never agree (apart from divine intervention!), please do accept my sincere apology for any offensive language. It was not so intended; sometimes all of us may get a little carried away in expressing ourselves.

I've just gone back (first time on for a while) and reviewed this entire post. I note that USN2Pulpit says "There are Scriptures that support open communion too . . ." - but so far as I can tell by a scan, no one has cited one. I have given 3 passages that clearly do limit the table, and you have even agreed (if I read you correctly) that known unbelievers and those openly immoral ought not to partake. (And let me
commend you and the church where you are on biblical discipline, which is always to be restorative, not punitive. We "Landmarkers" need to learn that lesson.) But genuinely "open" communion excludes no one. Almost all who believe
the Bible at all accept some limits.


It seems to me (here I repeat myself) that the reql question is not the terms of communion, but the nature of the ecclesia. Such passsages as
"Tell it to the church: but if he neglect to hear the church . . . ." (Mt. 18:17), or Rom. 16:23,
"Gaius my host, and of the whole church ....", or
I Cor. 4:17, "As I teach everywhere in every church," and several similar, sum up my view; each church is a whole church, not "part of a church," and "every (true) church" is to be commmitted to the same essential teachings, so that there is a paradigm by which to recognize
"church." I suspect you would largely agree.

Since we have a universal family of the genuinely born-again, and since no one sees the heart of another, we need some basis for our fellowship.
Our fellowship is based largely on public profession and prayerful Scripture study together.
It is my understanding of this board that it is to be a place (one of many) for such discussion. But if you do not feel led to continue the discussion
further, that is entirely your privilege; just do know that I have remembered you in prayer, even before I read the post expressing your distress.
While I am in closer agreement with Brothers James
and Rhetorician, I do wish you and yours His best
out there in "sun country." (We have rain and fog today.) In Christ together, Charles - Ro.8:28

 

First of all we need to understand that we as Christians are the "church". Regardless of denomination if you are a believer in Jesus Christ you should be allowed to partake in the Body and Blood or bread and wine or communion. As long as your heart is clear before partaking.
Is it not true that the Baptists see communion as purely a sybolic gesture?
Are we not to make deciples of all and baptize them in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit? It does not say go and make Baptists or any denomination. Any believer is entitled to communion. Any church that will not feed all believers is legalism at best. What would Jesus do?!
Matthew 26:26 (New International Version)
26While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom.”

Matthew 28:19 (New International Version)
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

 

Bro Charles,

Thank you for your wonderful and gracious response. I too, must apologize for words that I have expressed in zeal that were without grace.

I will remain at a place of disagreement with you on this issue for I feel the Scripture clearly teaches that the table is the Lord's and those who are His are welcome. I also believe that it is the responsiblity of those choosing to partake to be sure they are right with the Lord. No one else can rightly judge the matter.

Again, I appreciate you input and I have read your Scriptural reference I just don't feel they teach closed communion. When our church shares communion I endeavor to set the scriptural perameters and encourage those present to seek the Lord as to whether they shall partake. If you were there as a brother in Christ you would be welcome to share in the remembrance of our Lord. Your profession of faith and salvation is just a real or not real whether or not you have done it in my church fellowship.

God bless you my brother,

Bro Tony

 

Iride4Jesus - Sorry to be so long - I've been in a meeting in Tennessee, just back briefly before going to Illinos. As you have time to research, look up the uses of "ecclesia" in a Strong's Concordance and see how many of them might be stretched to some "universal" idea of all believers. You will quickly find that almost all are references to local, visible congregations of scripturally baptized believers. Some are plural; some are generic (like "man", which is not a universal invisible man but "any man,"
"mankind" (always local wherever found); a few may refer to the ultimate church in Heaven; but none require your definition. Before you respond, if you are still checking this post, please do look at all the Scriptures on the subject; they will say much more than I can.

Best in Him - Charles - Ro. 8:28

 

IMO, closed communion and open communion are both unbiblical and dangerous.

Purely open communion can lead to sin spreading in the midst.

Closed communion can lead to people getting sick and dropping dead.

Paul warned that the church should disfellowship and not eat with the man who was living in unrepentant incestuous fornication. The leaven needed to be purged, and if it were not, it would contanimate the entire lump of dough. Notice the passover 'bread' metaphors in I Cor. 5.. Paul calls the church a loaf of bread in I Corinthians chapter 10, as well, where he says that ye are all members of the body because you all eat of the loaf.

Closed communion is dangerous. There were divisions among the believers in Corinth. Apparently, some of the brethren were eating up all the food before the poor got there. By doing so, they were not regarding the body of Christ. A few verses before we read "this is My body" and several verses later, we read that the parts of the church are parts of the body of Christ. By not regarding the people who were a part of the body when they ate the bread, they were not rightly regarding the Lord's body. For this reason many among them were sick and many were weak.

The 'boundaries' of the local chruch in scriputre seems to ahve been the city. The singular 'church' is used in regard to the church in Jerusalem, the church in Ephesus, and various other passages. Paul warned the Corinthians about division in the church in Corinth, another 'city-church.'

 

I would like to throw out something for consideration......

Firstly, If by "Closed Communion" we mean that only born-again Christians may partake of the Lord's Supper; I would agree.
If however, "Closed Communion" is taken to mean that only members of a certain church or denomination may partake; then I must disagree....

In Acts Chapters 11 and 12 we see an interesting occurance:
"First Baptist Church of Jerusalem" (tongue in cheek) hears of a revival happening at the "First Gentile Church" of Antioch. So they (FBCJ) send Barnabas to check out this "revival" to see if it is real. Barnabas sees that it is a real move of the Holy Spirit and seeks out Saul of Tarsus (Paul) to give him a hand in teaching....
Well, Barnabas and Paul spend a year in Antioch helping to establish the church there.

Now a couple of things here...we know that the early Christians practiced Communion (see Acts 2:42), and that in fact Paul wrote a treatise to the church in Corinth instructing them in the proper "form" (if you will) of the Lord's Supper.
We also know that the city of Antioch had somewhere around 200,000 people, yet did not have a Synogogue (there weren't, apparently ten Jewish men in the city....the number required to establish a Synogogue), so we may infer that Antioch was indeed a pagan city.

I believe that we may also infer that the church at Antioch would have celebrated the Lord's supper, as this was the practice of the Apostles.......

Seems to me then that it really made no difference whether one was a member of the church in Jerusalem or in Antioch (or in Corinth for that matter) as far as partaking of communion....Simply that one had to be a Christian.........

Just a thought.

 

mcgyver - I read once of a debate between a Baptist and a Methodist in which the latter
"inferred" infant sprinkling from the baptism of Lydia's household. The Baptist replied something as follows: "Lydia's husband was named George; he was red-headed, weighed 230 pounds, and walked with a limp." When the Methodist asked for a Scripture or source, the Baptist reply was: "If we are going to infer, we might as well infer anything we choose!"

If that sounds too "catty," let me ask in a more serious vein, if the church of which you are a member were to establish a mission, could the ordinances be observed properly in either place by members of either the mission or the "mother church"? Is not the very sending of Barnabas to Antioch, along with the sending of Peter and John to Samaria (Acts 8), a recognition of "church continuity," or succession/perpetuity? Jerusalem
"sponsored" Antioch, which in turn sent Paul and first Barnabas, then Silas, to establish new works and strengthen them to self-sufficiency. If this is the NT pattern, would not membership in the "mother" church be shared until each new work
was fully "constituted" (modern term, but not a bad understanding of Acts 15:41 and similar passages, it seems). Yes, we may all have to
"infer" some things, but my motto has been for some years "less opinion, more Scripture." In that mode, it would seem helpful if all of us had
more exposition of text in our posts. Someone a few weeks ago suggested that we pray before posting; I'm trying to keep an open Bible and an open mind before doing mine. (BTW, the idea of communion in Acts 2:42 is really inference also, isn't it? This could just as easily be regular meals in homes, certainly part of their Christian fellowship as it often is of ours.) And if we open to "all Christians" for communion, aren't we forced to judge who is and who isn't, or else allow obvious mockery in some cases? Also, what do we do with the "no divisions" of I Cor. 11?

Lots to consider - as noted above, it is not a light thing to eat at the Lord's table; eating with a wrong spirit made some sick, and some even "slept" (evidently, in death).

Best in Him - Charles - Ro. 8:28

 

Charles, you make a valid point....
And no, I don't think it is "catty" at all (I was chuckling as I read).....
My question is simply this: what is the requirement to partake of the Lord's Supper (granted that one's heart is right before God)......Is it a "membership" within a particular denominational setting or is there a more "universal" (if you will) requirement.
My contention is that communion should be open to any and all born-again believers who otherwise would be "qualified" to take communion (i.e. not living in a sinful style, etc.), and that when our Lord established His remembrance; it was for the church universal.
I would also submit that even though we try and ascertain whether one is living a "Christian" lifestyle; only God can truly know the condition of another's heart. Therefore I think the individual bears the brunt of responsibility as to whether or not they are qualified to partake. Our responsibility then, IMHO is to properly educate and expound the requirements from scripture in order that one may know the gravity of the Lord's Supper.

I agree with you that it is indeed "not a light thing to eat at the Lord's table."

 

Dear friend and brother - Sorry to be so long in responding - have been away a good deal, then the "confuser" was down a couple of days, one as Ethixs set up some changes, one when Microsoft
"detected a problem" and shut me down while they tried to solve it. Maybe they did, but it took the Ethixs tech support to start me up again!

Our primary area of difference is the nature of "ecclesia" - I am firmly committed to the principle that it means only an assembly or congregation, never a denomination, and never on this earth or in this age anything beyond a local,
visible (though invisibly bonded together) group
of scripturally immersed believers, with Christ as Head of each local body and the Holy Spirit as the heart and blood stream pumping life through that body, a continuing incarnation of His work.
I realize that is not a common view, even on this "Baptist Board," but when it is held, one takes a different view of church membership than that prevailing today. Baptism is done by a church, under the Lord's authority; the person doing the baptizing must be approved by the church
and does not act independently. I would not vote
(however it is done) on receiving a candidate for baptism in any congregation except the one where the Lord has added me to the body, nor on any other business action in another church, nor would I feel in any way offended at not being able to do so. The intimacy of communion with Christ as part of a body of believers known to one another is one of the deepest fellowships available on this earth. It would be most uncomfortable for me to claim a part in the memorial meal where I was not a member. As a frequent interim pastor over more than 40 years, I have (by vote of the church) administered communion services of which I did not partake, which has given me a frequent opportunity to explain my view of "church communion" (some folks call it "closed", but I see it as open to the self-examined members of that congregation.) It was to the church at Corinth that Paul wrote those words about self-judgment, after all.

Well, it's tired and I am late, but I do wish you His best. In His family together- Charles -Ro. 8:28