Lord's Supper guarded least in the church

I think this is comparing apples and oranges. When partaking of th LS we are to examine ourselves, we are not to be examined by the church.

Secondly, we wouldn't allow someone convicted of monetary crimes in the past handle the funds, but if they are right with the Lord at the time the LS is being administered, no reason for them not to partake. Same goes with working with kids, etc.

 

You've hit on a real problem. How do we know if a stranger is not under church discipline? I know, that possibility will be a rarity, but the fact is, we probably won't know.

But we will know if we confine participation to our own congregation.

By the way, congratulations on your church's practice of giving instructions before observing the Lord's Supper. It will be helpful to visitors who may not know what your church's stance is.

If we have any closed communion churches represented here on the BB, it is very important to instruct the folks to avoid any sticky situations.

 

If they are under church discipline I would assume they are not even in the building, correct? For if they were and the table was given there is still no command to withhold it from them. That is their choice and they suffer the consequences if there are any.
.

 

I've always been taught and seen practiced that it is up to each person to examine themselves and that churches should open communion to all who wish ot partake. I guess that's just the responsibility of the individual.

 

Now we're entering a field of discussion that I'm not prepared for.

 

What if they are under discipline from another church? What if they were disfellowshipped for flagrant, unrepented sin? Do you still want to allow them the choice that God may kill them for making?

Paul told the church at Corinth to withhold it from the man who was having an affair with his father's wife.

 

Absolutely we ought to withhold the Lord's Supper from someone involved in open, unrepentant sin, if we know about it. I am certain there are people in any fellowship of believers (even those who practice closed communion) who are involved in open sin without anyone knowing about it. For example, a man beats his wife, but she doesn't say anything. That's obviously unrepentant sin, but it is impossible to look into the hearts of every person and know that there heart is in fellowship with the Lord. So closing the Lord's Supper to only members of a local church doesn't really take care of the problem. That is, unless we decide to open our own investigative unit for people.

I have one other thought about guarding the Lord's Supper. It seems that God himself has devised ways to guard this supper. And He did in Corinth where people had been sick and died because of it.

I am glad though that we keep reminding each other about the importance and meaning of the Lord's supper.

 

I don't know of any passage telling the church to withhold the table from anyone including the passage you referred to. It says to turn him over to satan, not withhold the table. That being said I would assume the man would be put out of the church and that alone would stop him from taking the fellowship of the table.
If someone is under discipline from another church and has been put out and it is known when they show up you simply ask them to leave.
if someone is in known open sin and the chuch does not disciplin them then the church should not hold the table until they get right with God.

 

Those that are singing in the church are leading the church in worship. So yes, I would place a higher importance on it. At my church, we are small and don't have any auditions. We do however require you to be a member in good standing with the church. We don't want to just let anyone lead our church in worship through song. For the Lord's Supper, we require that you be saved.

 

It has been said that we have to watch so someone living in open sin will not partake of the Lord's Supper.

In reality, although this could occur, I would imagine that Christians living this way would not have any desire to participate in the Lord's Supper. I don't remember any member who lived in open sin attending our worship services. We wouldn't have even been able to get them to attend church, let alone participate in the Lord's Supper.

 

And singing as he departed.

 

It was a practice in the early church to celebrate the Lord's Supper in conjunction with the fellowship meals. To exclude the Corinthian fornicator from the fellowship meal has the result of excluding him from the Lord's Supper.

In I Cor 5:11, Paul sternly told the church "not to eat" with that man or anybody else involved in any number of other sins. Here we have the principle established that the church is to determine to whom it will administer the ordinances.

I'm glad that you're not leaving it up to the individual to determine for himself his right to take the LS.

 

I've been reading a little booklet called Communion, Is It Open or Closed? by Dr. Bobby L. Sparks (Tabernacle Ministries 2006).

He makes the point about I Cor 5:11 that the fornicator, covetous, idolator, a railer, a drunkard or an extortioner are described as "brothers." Professing Christians. Saved people. Church members.

Dr. Sparks notes that Paul didn't write to those people mentioned above and order them not to go down to the church and eat with them.

He says: "No, sir! God wrote to the church and told the church don't you let them eat with you."

In that same chapter, Paul goes on to say that they MUST judge those within the congregation. And if they are judged wicked, kick 'em out.

Again, here is the church guarding the ordinances, guarding the covenant relationship, guarding the fellowship, and promoting holiness among its members.

 

I don't agree that is what the passage is teaching, but the result of not having fellowship with them does keep them from taking the table.

 

Just asking for clarification. You're not saying that one excluded from the fellowship is still eligible to take the Lord's Supper, are you? I know that the practical result of exclusion is withholding the LS, but are there circumstances where you would allow it?

 

[SIZE=+0]I am saying that the church leaders are not commissioned to be the police of who is and who is not eligible to take the Lord's super. If you notice in scripture the warning to the church is not about if someone has sin in their life, as most probably have sin including most pastors today, :tear: but about how or under what circumstances one is taking the super. It is to be done respectfully and orderly and not as a party or taken lightly, and it is clear in Chapter 11 that each is to examine their own heart not someone else examining it and policing the gathering.
As to your question as to is there anytime I would not allow another to take the super the answer is no since if those attending are permitted to attend then they are permitted to partake except they self examine and self disqualify. There is no such command to police others in. I would follow the scripture and explain what it is about, who is eligible, who should not take of it and, explain the possible consequences if done lightly and let each decide by their own self examination. God is able to render correction.
One reason that some want to police it is because of being power mongers as well as not trusting the Lord to be able to discipline if the person taking violates His intent. If proper church discipline has taken place and a person has been put out then that is sufficient to keep the table. No other policing needs to be done nor should it.
[/SIZE]

 

Tom Butler,

The principle that you have drawn is quite faulty. In fact, you've done serious harm to the text. You've said more than Paul actually gets at. Paul has believers of a fellowship in mind, who are guilty of practicing sin.