Closed communion - as doctrine

So now you say drunkeness and gluttoney aren't sin?

Adultery is gluttoney and being drunk with the wine of fornication.

The passage means to knowingly being under conviction for sin and partaking of the Lord's Supper, or do you somehow belive the Holy Ghost has misplaced the power to convict saints?

Adultery IS irreverence for the atoning blood of Christ and His body broken for our transgressions. Anyone who is known for being in any illicit affair is to be denied communion as the effort to reconcile them back into fellowship.

Churches have become so afraid of losing members they overlook too many sins ( afraid they can't pay the bills because offerings decrease), this places men in charge of God's ordinance. :1_grouphug:

Let the truth be known, it's only the carnal that would not attend. Yet sinners see the hypocrisy and see no use in going to a comprimised church.:tear:

Churches have laid aside the principles, purposes and practices of discipline in an effort to keep the financial statement looking good.:sleep:

What I learned is if God is obeyed and kept as the head He takes care of all the finances.:thumbsup:

 

Maybe it's the one where if a man judge himself, or maybe the one where he is to examine himself.

Ah, heck, of course it is.:tonofbricks:

 

What I'm waiting for is the verses that show CC to be a doctrine.

I have known pastors who won't even observe communion at all because they say we all have sin and would be drinking damnation to our souls.

The key is that we all should examine ourselves, giving open opportunity for the Lord to show us our wrongs. Then we should judge ourselves and repent of those sins before taking communion, or we could go ahead and take the chance for God to judge us!

We even have an altar call BEFORE the communion service exactly for that purpose.:thumbsup:

 

Never said that, Harold. Not once.

That's not what the passage is referring to. The passage starts by saying "When you come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not..." and then he goes on to say "... he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body."

The passage is expressly referring to gluttony and drunkenness.

 

I like your abbreviation better than mine. Consider it stolen

 

It's not a doctrine, it's a practice.

Stay away from them, very far.

Examining ourselves is a separate issue from the restrictions of the Lord's table. Of course we should. And the idea of an altar call prior to communion sounds like a good idea to me.

 

And all this time I thought it was all about discerning the Lord's body. John, it's not about the rich, the poor, the drunks and gluttons, it's about our approach to the Lord's table.

 

Certinaly, this is covered elsewhere in scripture. This specific passage, however, was addressing a succinct problem, that of abusing the custom of communion for the purpose of gluttony and drunkenness.

 

Truth. Also it was about the way they approached it and what they did, or didn't do after getting there. I didn't see it til today, but you called me "Harold" in quoting me. Have I earned a pet name? Your's is "Q". Sometimes I skip over and don't see everything when scrolling up or down on my phone.

 

It is about the irreverent physical manner in 1 Cor 11

 

We all know you're Harold Garvey, we just can't prove it. At least not yet.

 

I hadn't known I entered a courtroom? You all will have a very tough go at it to prove I am somebody that I am not. You might see it to your benefit to pray about this before taking communion and real soon, "Q". Might it be you should go back before the Continuim and ask for your Q power of omniscience back!

 

Doesn't matter. You're Harold Garvey, and most of us know it.

 

Closed bread and wine to Christians who are not of your local fellowship is daft.

Why? If they are the Lord's. Seems daft if you ask me.

 

It should come to assessment of this thread that communion should only be closed to those who are in known sin by the congregation. This is admonishable to those and is a doctrine. All the posts have helped me to know more than I did and I thank you all for the posts that help me.

 

We eat and drink judgement on ourselves. Non Christians cop for it later.

 

ALL RIGHT, Paul and Johnv,

It's time to shake on it and make up!!:laugh:

 

My first Baptist fellowship always said, the Table is open to all who love the Lord.

And why always the second Lord's Day in the month I will never know.

As often as you do Jesus said. Guess that makes sense. I prefer once a week or more. I wish every day.

 

Yet, in scripture's account of the last supper, Jesus served Judas, knowing full well of what he was doing.

That said, I'm not saying I disagree with the idea of denying communion to anyone who is in known sin. I'm just saying that the "unworthy" passage in Corinthians wasn't written to address that.

Further, I, as an elder in my church, and who is one of the people who serves communion weekly, do not believe I am authorized by either scripture or the church to deny communion to anyone who approaches me during communion time.

 

Daftness must be some sort of excercise because many are doing it. Jesus told all of his to do communion and warnings are found with his saying to do it. A pastor would do well to encourage people to do communion on a regualr basis. He would need to discourage others until they got it right from doing communion. It isn't the pastor's or the church's role to deny it, but theirs to observe and do it.