Featured How Does Your Local Church Administer Communion?

The Lord's table is open to all who profess faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, who have been scripturally baptized, and who can [in good conscience] pass the fencing proviso explained in 1 Cor. 11:27, 28.

 

I agree with saturneptune that our church should have a clear policy regarding who comes to the Lord's table. In practice, we are open communion, since nothing is ever said to alert visitors otherwise.

As one who advocates closed communion (local church members only), I think it is useful to explain how I came to that position.

Jesus established the principle of a limited Lord's Table with the first communion. Only the twelve were there. And even Judas left before it started.

Paul wrote to the church at Corinth to "guard the ordinances." (I Cor 11:2) To me, this places the responsibility for administering communion on the local church.

It is clear, to me at least, that communion is for baptized believers--church members. This, of course, raises the question as to what constitutes valid baptism.

Is sprinkling a valid mode? I don't think so. And further, if that's the case, does a sprinkling church meet the criteria of a true New Testament church?

See where I'm going. If their baptism is not valid, it follows that they are not eligible to take the Lord's Supper because they do not belong to a legitimate NT church.

Then, there's the question of church discipline. Non-members are not subject to church discipline. And, how can one decide eligibility for communion for a perfect stranger who walks in the door?

One may say I'm making too much of the issue. But remember, Paul warned those who take the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner were in danger.

Bottom line, the Lord's Supper is a church ordinance, not an individual ordinance or a kingdom ordinance. And only local church members should participate.

That said, I will abide by whatever our church decides.

 

Effective elders will know their people. If there is a member who is living contrary to the faith they should be confronted and called to repentance. Church discipline is a means of grace IMHO. It is the last act a church can take to call a wayward member to repentance and restoration.

 

Most if not all the churches I have visited or regularly attended have made the practice of announcing who can participate.

Within my good conscience, I either participated or left before being served.

 

A congregation's policy on communion is not a test of fellowship for me. I don't know how many others in my church share my views. saturneptune and I serve the same church. We both serve as deacons. He and I differ on the issue. We've never had an extended discussion about it. We get along just fine and have great fellowship.

It is not an issue worth dividing a church.

 

We have open communion. At the start of a service with communion, and at the beginning of the distribution of the elements, we simply let all know what's going on and that this a Christian practice for those who are able to partake according to Scripture. We don't tell them only our covenant members can take it.

 

Open is the only way be consistent with universal church.

Close is a copout for those who are not sure.

Closed is the only way to truly show the real ecclesia, the Bride, the body of Christ.

Many churches fail to discern the Lord's body. The Corinthian Church had that problem--they had a serious discipline/doctrine problem. Study: a worthy partaker and/or the worthiness of the manner of partaking.

The poll does not have enough data points to draw conclusions. A hundred data points would be more significant. It does show that 80% of 10 are universal church--invisible or visible. This teaching is from Rome or Wittenburg. There are probably many who know not the difference. True Baptists are not Papists or Protestant.

This is a pivotal issue and a test of fellowship.

Correctly discerning the Body of the Lord is a glorious event.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"The Baptist Faith" is an ambiguous term, kind of like "The Baptist Church" or "the Baptist denomination". Such an entity does not exist, never has. "Baptist" is short for Anabaptist, a term of derision, promulgated by papists and protestants. By the way, true Baptists are not protestants, nor have they ever been part of Rome.

This is not about a name; but rather a Faith and Practice--See Book of Jude. If we must have a name, The Way or That Way--Book of Acts, would keep the discussion going. But these terms have been corrupted--like ecclesia(church).

All of this boils to: The FAITH AND PRACTICE ONCE FOR ALL DELIVERED UNT0 THE SAINTS, Jude 3. This boils further: alien immersion and closed communion. Universal church makes anybody and everybody with most any kind of doctrine acceptable(no discipline). Is sprinkling babies acceptable baptism? Why or why not? Is there a real presence in communion or not? Baptism and Lord's supper have been the major schism among the faithful and the apostate. Problem: the apostates are in control. Universal church says it doesn't matter.

One more point worthy of discussion: salvation and church membership are not the same thing. There are saved out the rolls of a church; and unsaved on church rolls.

There is something unique about: the Body of Christ gathering together, confessing faults one to another; forgiving one another; partaking of the elements; praying together; singing a hymn together...

Universal church/open communion do not do that.

"In good standing" says a lot. See I Cor. Ch.5.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Ours is open to any christian faith. We use grape juice and bread. What churches use wine for their communion instead of grape juice?

 

After my post #5, there apparently is nothing left to add.

 

I used to be a member of the IFB Bible Baptist Church [not affiliated with the BBF] for many years back in the 1970's - 1990's. They used wine and unleavened bread in their communion services back then.

Whether or not they still do, I'm not 100% certain (but they probably do).

PS -- They also practiced closed communion.

 

A few years ago, our church clerk began bringing to business meeting a list of names he wanted the church to remove from the rolls. Over a period of a year or more, I think we removed somewhere near 200 inactive members.

So, the church staturneptune and I serve at least made an effort at some form of church discipline, although imperfectly, I'm sure.

So there is the other side of the coin. SN is worried that under closed communion, some delinquent members would still be able to take communion, when dedicated Christian visitors would be excluded. I don't see this as a big problem, since those delinquent members are highly unlikely to show up anyway.

Under open communion (or close communion), those members dropped from our rolls would still be able to participate in the Lord's Supper, just as any stranger who walks through the door.

SN and I do agree that we tend to be inconsistent in church discipline, and that leads to inflated church rolls, and the likelihood that a big majority of them are probably not saved.

Of course, that leads to the question, how did they get on the roll in the first place, but that's another thread.

 

LOL! Who else would be in the Reformed tradition BUT Calvinists.