Open/Close/Closed Communion

I am currently working over the position of close versus closed communion. They handful of Bible verses directly pertaining to the ordinance are not clear to me in dividing the truth of these two positions. Also, this topic seems inexorably linked with the Baptist Bride position (see the Fundamental Baptist forums for recent posts), in that the definition of who is in the church is a deciding factor in who can take of the Communion.

So I will post my thoughts--1) Though scripture tells us to judge ourselves to see if we eat and drink "unworthily," it does not explicitly state that church membership (or lack thereof) contributes to our "worthiness," 2) It also does not state that one must be a member of that particular congregation to partake of Communion, 3) Judas, though known of Christ to be not only the betrayer, but also of the Devil, was still present and partook of the orginal Lord's Supper.

My stance: though an individual assembly has freedom in how they protect their members via order and rule, they cannot tell faithful members of other churches to refrain from taking Communion with them. Also, they are not authorized to forcefully withold Communion from those who enter their assembly and desire to take it, whether or not they are members, faithful, or even saved (Note: they _are_ authorized to kick people out of the congregation, thus preventing them from partaking, but not those who are welcomed in the door).

I look forward greatly to this discussion.

-Pluvivs

 

Herein lies the Baptist Brider issue--if the church=the body, where is the dividing line between which church/body boundaries apply. For example, in a universal church emphasis, any saved individual could partake of the Communion, since they are all part of Chirst's body--the local assembly has no bearing as long as there is "solomn self examination." In a semi-universal church mindset, anyone who is a member of a true local assembly of God, rightly called a church, could partake of the Lord's Supper in any other assembly, since there is fellowship between the congregations. In a strictly local-assembly sense (esp. in light of the Baptist Bride), the Communion would have to be closed, since no local assembly would fully or purely represent Christ if outsiders (lost or otherwise) were to partake.

MTA, can you give some scriptural bearing to your assertions? For example, can you show where the church (in a total, universal, institutional sense) is _not_ given the responsibility to follow the ordinances, but rather each individual congregation?

-Pluvivs

 

I was hoping someone would start responding to this, very heartfelt question of mine! Very excited I am that there are such passions about it. I have had the priviledge to open scripture recently and study the subject in more detail, and will post all such thoughts very soon, when I'm not on company time (I'm on company lunch time now).

Suffice to say this--neither Christ, nor his disciples ever stated any specific rules about who may _not_ eat of the Lord's supper over and above any other supper. He did state in I Cor 5:11 that "if any man that is called a brother" commit such open sin as mentioned previously in the chapter or listed explicitly in v11, we are not to keep company with them at all, Lord's Supper or otherwise. Also, we are to examine ourselves (not _be_ examined by external, i.e. church, authorities) and then eat, correcting our thoughts and hearts before observation. And also, Judas still took the Lord's Supper, being unregenerate and damned, Christ the authority and example not refraining to wash his feet, give him the cup, or the unleavened bread, or the sop.

As I mentioned before, this doctrine is intrinsically tied to the Baptist Brider position, for as Mark Osgatharp's post pointed out, if you define the church one way or another, it will affect your belief here.

-Pluvivs

 

Mark, what do you think the significance was of Judas being hand-picked by Christ? Do you believe that Jesus knew in his mind on earth that Judas was of the Devil?

Many many many times I hear "1. This is a local church matter. 1 Cor 11:17, when they came together. Who? The Church." This statement, even if strictly true in scripture, does not prove that this is ONLY a local church matter. That reasoning could easily extend to mean that the 10 commandments were only given to the Jews, etc. This is the same as being "guilty by association."

Pastor Larry, my personal belief is as yours, simply because it is wise, and harmonious to scripture which says we are not to be "unequally yoked" with unbelievers. BUT, I cannot say 100% that that is doctrine, for there is no direct exclusion of any but the aforementioned (in my earlier post) people from communion in the Bible. Nevertheless, I Cor 11 says nothing of "exclusion," only of disorder.

Oh, sorry for not reading your post until now, Roy1, but your piecing-together of scripture in point 6 is ridiculous and without basis. Judas was at the Lord's Supper, as well as the Passover.

-Pluvivs

 

Not any more! I graduated a la UMR last year, and have yet update my profile. I actually exist in Alabama, Lord only knows for how long.

-PlUMRivs

 

My question was not one of a church's responsibility of "fill in" where we are not specifically told how to act in scripture. If that were so, then I would have my own views to share on the issue, yet being subject to my church, and I would not have brought it up at all.

I am asking what doctrine, clearly defended by scriptural mandate can be made about 1) who may worthily partake of the Lord's Supper, and consequently 2) how is that enforced in the church and also consequently 3) how does that effect the legitimacy/characterize the faithfulness of a particular congregation.

-Pluvivs

 

Pastor Larry, you quoted "in proper fellowship..." but I know not where from? That term or anything like it is not in I Cor 11. The commands in that passage do not say we have to be in fellowship with the body--only that 1) Paul heard their were divisions, which ought not to be, 2) the Lord's Supper is not a meal, but a memorial (vs 21 and 34 demonstrate this in contrasting Communion with regular eating and drinking meals) 3) men ought to examing themselves in order to discern the Lord's body.

Basically, even though I agree with your statements in general, and especially as Christain Brothers and Sisters, they are not specifically commanded as metrics by which our "worthiness" for Communion can be judged.

I wholly disagree with your statement "Someone who is not a member cannot be in proper fellowship with the body." That is outrightly discordant with scripture when applied to members of other churches, for we are told that "[we all are] baptized into one body, whether [we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." And again "[There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who [is] above all, and through all, and in you all." Are you referring to people outside of any church, or just those outside of that local congregation?

And as for lost souls partaking, for the record I agree that they should not, but am concerned about how we try to prevent them from doing so, especially in large congregations. That is the bit I hope to glean from all of this.

-Pluvivs