Featured How open should it be

I like this answer. But in reality it is not always possible to ascertain that all whom we baptize or partake of the Lord's supper with are truly born again.

Our former church in Florida (which practiced closed comm.) did it at a special time before the regularly scheduled service so that it would be less likely for those who did not qualify to be there.

 

My church requires one to have been born again, and not living in unrepentant sin state, but not required to be water baptized or a member!

Also realise each baptist church free to regulate as they seem fit!

 

It seems that the verse "let a man examine himself" guides the views of those who hold to open communion. That is, that it's not up to the church to decide who takes communion; it's up to the individual. And, believers are not to pass judgment in any way over eligibility to partake. Take that to its logical extension and you'll arrive at the view that even if we know someone is an unbeliever, pass the plate to him anyway.

Yet, in a number of scriptures, believers are admonished to pass judgment and to act on that judgment.

For instance, Paul wrote an entire letter to the congregation at Corinth, raking them over the coals and correcting them.

In 5:11 of his first letter, Paul wrote:

Some church members, huh?

Paul was basically ordering members to judge other members, and not to fellowship with them. Since the Lord's Supper was usually observed in conjunction with a fellowship meal, the effect was to deny the offenders communion.

In 6:3, Paul demanded that members of FBC Corinth pass judgment.

Paul wrote FBC Corinth in Chapter eleven "When you are come together in the church..."
It's clear to me that he meant for the Lord's Supper to be served as a body. Paul goes on to criticize some who mixed the fellowship meal into the Lord's Supper, and in particular those who got drunk, and others who gorged themselves. They were doing it all wrong, and Paul warned them that they were on dangerous ground. Do it right, or God might just kill you. It's that serious.

In Chapter 5, Paul lambasted the church over its treatment of a man who was having sex with his father's wife. Fornication at best, incest at worst. in 5:7 he writes, "kick him out." Oops, there goes Paul, judging again.

I fear that in some churches, this man would still be invited to partake by simply claiming to be saved and a church member.

Oh, and one more thing: wasn't the Passover closed to all but Jews?

 

Question: if a member who is living in unrepentant, open sin, would it be okay to even deny him entrance into the church building? Much less offer him the elements?

Sorry, this is derailing the thread. Ignore this if you want to.

 

When the local church sets policy of open or closed communion, it has exercised its authority, not at the time the Lord's Supper is served. In the Baptist community at large, there seems to be very little tolerance of closed communion.

It is not always true, but certain doctrines follow others most of the time. For example, in Presbyterian churches that are Calvinistic or Reformed (as all of them pretty much are), open communion is the practice. Here, it seems to be the opposite. Reformed seems to be aligned with closed in many cases on this board. That is not always the case.

 

In the church SN and I serve, I suspect you'll find opinions all along the spectrum. Our church would be described as mostly open, but more for a practical reason than theological or ecclesiological. It's related to the way we serve the Lord's Supper.

When the deacons fan out to serve the elements, the plate with the unleavened bread is passed from the aisle down the row to a deacon waiting in the other aisle. Whoever is sitting in that row will take it or not, member or not, as they wish. So the deacons don't have to make any judgment at all. We're just plate-passers.

Until and unless our church votes on a clear policy, in practice we are open. That means we'll serve Catholics, Mormons, Christadelphians, whatever.

I'm pretty sure that if we did take a vote, my view (closed) would not prevail. But I am under the authority of the church, and this is not a test of fellowship for me.

 

Yes, I agree we are under the authority of the local church. This is one of the distinctives that makes us Baptists and not mainline Protestant denominations. There was recently a church in a nearby county that almost destroyed itself over this issue trying to establish one way or the other. To me, it is not worth that price, although I doubt our church would react that way to the situation. If the church did vote open or closed, and either us or other members could not abide by the decision of the church, then it would be time to move on.

One point I must disagree with is your groups you mention. Open communion is open to Christians, followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, in all of its aspects. Mormons, Catholics, and JWs do not meet that standard.

If you were the one passing the plate, and one of the 65% of our roll that shows no redeemable spiritual qualities, how would you justify serving those vs a Protestant of some other denomination?

 

Per the communion, the deal is between thatperson and jesus, for only the Lord knows what sin areas that person might be clinging unto and doing with no regard!

But per your question...

IF a person was in unrepenent sin, known to all, and refused to heed the pastors/elders/body, yep, would be asked to leave until they came back to the lord!

 

I wrote about the Mormons, Catholics and JWs to illustrate where an open table eventually takes you. But you make an excellent point.

At our church, we avoid answering the question by simply passing the plate with the bread down the row, and whoever wants to take it, does.

This method makes it difficult to answer your question, or Salty's OP question. I know what my personal preference would be, but it would be pointless to divide the church over it.

 

Alive in Christ..

This is horrible.

Or...who knows...Paul might have meant what he said here;

27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep

 

Communion per the Bible ONLY for the redeemed, who are living in fellowship with the Lord Jesus, so in your question, even if saved, assuming fornication, would not be allowed the communion!

 

Communion ONLY for those already saved!

 

Icon. So, let t me ask you..Who is it at your church that is the dicserner of the heart of that known lost person heart as he partakes of the lords supper You? The the pastor? The elders? And you are completely wrong regarding the issue of "eating damnation to himself".

Good day

 

I'll certainly yield to Icon to answer for himself, but I have an observation or two.

A known lost person is by definition in rebellion against God.

He is in no way in harmony with the believing members of the congregation.

There is no way in which he can participate in a worthy manner, because he is not in fellowship with believers, and there is no way he can be in his lost state.

All the examples of proper observance of the Lord's Supper, and all of Paul's instructions are aimed at church members; and Paul did give instructions on why it should be denied to some members.

I cannot imagine any circumstances where offering the elements or permitting a lost person to take them would be allowed.

 

Alive in Christ

..

Sure...go ahead.

Well no AIC...it is not me.It is the head of the Church Himself.It is His supper, He oversee's it!:thumbs:

The pastors/Elders...repeat the warning that I quoted before every lord's supper and warn about what it means to profane the supper in this way.

If I am completely wrong as you say.....then you should have no trouble showing what I have posted is not the biblical position.
Furthermore.....your pragmatic suggestion that we should give communion to unsaved rebels in direct opposition to the posted verses is as absurd as having the congregation naming unsaved people to be pastors and teachers as according to your pragmatic philosophy; who knows???? they might "get saved" by acting like real christians and pastors:thumbs:

AIC.....out of a morbid curiosity...what do you think is taught in 1 cor 11.
Why is that in our bibles???

Thank you AIC!

 

You haven't even answered the question... seems silly to make that a requirement for everyone else while you police the thread.

Lets get an opinion (of your very own question) in the OP before you require it out of everyone else yes?

Better OP's that are on track is key, not policing all the way along...

 

That being said... I don't favor policing communion either...