Lords Supper(who)

open communion - anyone that is saved, regardless of church membership, baptism, etc.

 

The Lord's Supper is an ordinance given to the Lord's Church. The Scriptures say that as oft as we observe it, we are to do so in remembrance of our Lord.

My church practices closed communion and I agree with the distinction. Christ was speaking to His church (the apostles) when he instituted the ordinance. Likewise, I believe only His church can administer it and that it should be observed only by the local body of baptised believers.

The observance is a solomn expression of remembrance of the sacrifice made by our Savior so that we could have everlasting life. Observing this in a closed ceremony, makes it even more special. The closed observance is not meant to offend, but it is how we believe the observance is best practiced.

 

Close communion. Christians may participate, non-Christians may not.

 

The table is the Lord's. It does not belong to a denomination or a local fellowship. All who genuinely believe in Jesus as their Savior are welcome at His table. Paul tells us to "let a man examine himself". The table is not so open as to have unbelievers partake, but it cannot be so restrictive as to bar genuine believers from partaking.

BTW--It is an offense for a Bible believing church to deny Bible believing Christians from joining in the remembrance of their Lord.

Bro Tony

 

So, Tony, a professed believer living in open adultery should be allowed to participate? How about someone who was under church discipline and had been excluded from their fellowship?

 

The observance of the Lord's Supper is a memorial. As such, it is entirely appropriate that it be observed as the church deems appropriate. Self-examination should precede partaking of the supper and no one should eat or drink unworthily.

It is a solomn observance and whether your church practices closed, or close communion is entirely up to your respective church. It is a church ordinance and the church is responsible for administering it. There is nothing unscriptural about that.

We believe it is a church ordinance to be observed by the local church membership and we support that by observing closed communion.

 

We do NOT practice open communion, so only church members are invited.

 

A professed believer living in open adultery should not even be in this situation. He should have been confronted by other believers and/or the church leadership, and if he did not repent, he should not be in the church much less participating in the Lord's Supper. This would apply, I would think, to the person under church disciplien who is being restored but not restored yet (however the church does that).

 

I like to remind people in our Church that Paul said whosoever takes communio unworthily (lost or saved with unrepentant sin) is subject unto curse, illness & even death. This is stated in 1 Cor 10. As human beings we have no full knowledge of a person's salvation experience, especially first time visitors so it is offered to all.

we hold an alter call before the partaking of communion so that all may "get right with the Lord."

and yes we have open communion for visitors because I personally believe communion is a time of reflection and fellowship amoung God's family, not the members of an elected congregation. One day we all will have communion together with the Lord at the wedding supper!

 

Greg,

The question was not one of church discipline or one living in open adultery. If the church has performed biblical discipline (Matt 18), and the person has not repented then that person has already been dis-fellowshiped and would not be with the church during the Lord's Supper.

The issue is who does the table belong to. Many think it belongs to their denomination, some think it belongs to their local church. I believe it is the Lord's table, and the Apostle instructs that a person needs to examine themselves before they partake. I do not believe my church is "the" church, but we are a part of the THE Church.

Bro Tony

 

Each assembly is a separate church. A church is a local body of baptised believers. Each church is obligated to carry out the ordinances and the commision Christ left. There is no great big universal church that everyone belongs to.

At the end of time that individual distinction will be lost, but for now we are separate bodies in Christ.

Hence, the Church at Ephesus, the Church at Philadelphia, the Church at Antioch, the Church at Jerusalem . . . etc.

 

I agree with Bro Tony. The church is the body of all believers in Christ. I do not think a church has the right to restrict communion from believers who are not members -- the Lord's Supper is for believers, not just people in that church. It's the Lord's Supper, not the XYZ Baptist Church Supper (that's another kind of supper).

 

Then please reconcile the distinction of those local, visible, and separate bodies of baptized believers referred to in the New Testament. Were they all one church, or were they separate churches?

Did Christ have John write a letter to the church, or was it letters to the seven churches in Asia?

 

If a believer from another church were visiting one of the early churches would he have been told to wait outside while the church commemorated the Lord's supper?

I don't think so.

 

Are you saying that the writings of the Apostles, which were historically to those churches mentioned, have no impact on your local church? When you study it is important to know who the Apostle was originally writing to and what was going on in that church, but the truth shared was for all the church. If this were not true the New Testament would for the most part be meaningless to us today. I don't think that is what you are saying.

And by the way, did the church at Ephesus, Corinth in the region of Galatia, etc meet in just one building? Did they have large buildings where the entire community came together to worship? Or did they meet in homes, caves and other small places? They actually met all over their respective communities not all together at one time---and they were all the Church in that community.

Bro Tony

 

I have said nothing about the writings of the Apostles or the impact thoses writings have on those churches. Neither have I indicated that the singularity of the church in specific locations was because they met in large buildings, caves ,homes or anywhere else. None of those comments has anything to do with what I replied.

I simply stated that there is no single "church" in the universal sense. We serve in local, visible churches, just the way they did in John's time. Christ referenced individual churches in the letters John wrote.

When time ends, we shall all be called out and there will be one body, but for now, we labor as distinctive bodies of baptized believers.

 

Oh I'm sorry, it must of been another MTA who said,

You may not like to call it the universal church, but God does have His Church and it is not divided by walls, denominations or tradition. Man makes those divisions, not God. When the Holy Spirit spoke to John concerning His message to the Churches, it was not just to those specific churches, but to the church.

We do labor as distinctive bodies today, by our choice, not by the Lords. Paul said " There is one body and one Spirit...one Lord, one faith, one baptism..." Eph. 4:4-5 That we have made divisions because of our differences does not negate that the Lord only has one Church. Notice Paul did not say we will be, in the future, one body, but that we are one body.

That being the case to get back to original topic, all true believers are welcome at His table.

Bro Tony

 

The question is still valid. Are there many individual churches today, or is there one great big one? You say there are separate churches, then you say there is only one. At least stay on one side of the fence or the other.

Regarding who can partake of the supper . . . anyone the individual church allows at the table. It is a memorial table, administered by the church to her own, or to whom she chooses to open the table to. No one outside the authority of a church can claim a right to participate in an ordinance being administered by a church other than the one they have membership in. However, I cannot understand why anyone would want to.

If a church observes closed communion, that is their right. Likewise, those members of a church that practices closed communion would not expect to observe the ordinance anywhere but in their home church. This is based on individual interpretation of who has the responsibility to administer the ordinance and is a practice observed by independent bodies (churches) of baptised believers.