Open/Close/Closed Communion

No Universal Church talk!!! I know these are intimately tied issues, but please look in other threads and/or start a new one if you would like to see that discussed explicitly.

Matt, the lost are already damned and guilty of Christ's Blood, so no other act could make them more guilty. In that light, it is evident that the lost should not be participants. My earlier note of Judas may have suggested otherwise, but I know that the disciples were not privy to know that he was lost and damned and so they made no move to remove him from fellowship. We, like them, cannot be perfect judges, and so we must rest on the Lord's final judgement. Is there any doctrine (there may not be) that can be divined that answer my 2nd and 3rd questions in an earlier post (i.e. how do we enfore... and legitimacy)?

-Pluvivs

 

Mark,

Certainly not. And do not be misled into thinking I would condone such ordination if knowledgable of the state of that man. See my post right above yours--I fully believe that, had anyone but Christ known who Judas was (other than that he was a thief John 12:6), they would have ceased from fellowship with him. I ask these questions to glean any understanding of the issue that I can get, whether it come from my own spirit, or from the words of others.

People can be broadly classified into 1 of 4 areas: Believers (A) and Non-believers (B) in truth, and Professors (1) and Non Professors (2) in word and life. These are independent of each other, so that John the Beloved would be of type A-1, Judas B-1, etc. My search in this topic is specific division of truth, such that I can understand who is allowed at the Lord's Supper in light of this classification. (Caveat: by the 1-2 classification, I am making the bold assumption that the type 1's are faithfully in a local assembly, and that the 2's are not)

In a summary of my thoughts, most all instruction in the NT is given to type A-1 people, and most condemnation is given to type B-2. There are several examples of type B-1 (Rev 2:20, Matt 7:15), but very few of type A-2 (the only example I can think of off the top o' my head is I Cor 5, where a man is excommunicated for fornication).

The statement commonly made, especially concerning this subject, is "Christ was only speaking to [type A-1's], so it must follow that only [A-1's] may participate." However, there is no contrapositive, because there are 3 other possible states of man, so _that_ logic does not extend to say "Type A-2, B-1, and B-2 are not allowed" without a direct prohibition. We have such a prohibition of B-2's in I Cor 5 as "not to company with fornicators," and that specifically applies to A-2's in v 11. Since we cannot discern who (other than ourselves) are B-1's, we have no authorization to try to find them out externally--it is an internal matter as described in chapter 11.

My reading of the passages also shows nothing about a distinction from one A-1 type person to another, whether they be from the same assembly or not. Therefore, it would appear that Close Communion is concordant with scripture.

-Pluvivs the Classifier

 

Mark,

You have hit the nail on the head! The Judas point does prove some things, however, namely 1) we cannot take God's place in deciding who is actually saved and who are deceivers (differentiating A-1 and B-1 people), and we are not commanded to attempt to do so by any church practice 2) Likewise we must be "obliged" to treat them like any other, even if we heavily suspect them as infiltrators. Re-read my last post (especially the penultimate paragraph), for I say that the disciples would not have had fellowship with him if they knew him to be of the Devil.

Nevertheless, there is no distinction made between members of different churches from partaking of the Lord's Supper. Again I repeat, Christ and Paul speaking to a particular congregation does not constitute a basis for a doctrinal position that only a local congregation can partake.

-Pluvivs

 

Mark,

I never stated, nor do I hold, that the church has no ability to draw distinction, or that it cannot refrain people from partaking the supper. Rather, I said quite specifically...

"We have such a prohibition of [the lost living like the lost] in I Cor 5 as "not to company with fornicators," and that specifically applies to [the saved living like the lost] n v 11. Since we cannot discern who (other than ourselves) are [the lost pretending to be saved], we have no authorization to try to find them out externally--it is an internal matter as described in chapter 11."

That is, it is not explicitly given that a church can demand you show that you're saved publicly, or before the congregation, in any way as part of the preparation for taking Communion.

Mark, many times I have heard the allegorical picture of a particular assembly being a body as proof of doctrine. It simply isn't. You yourself admit so. Yet the passage you quote in I Cor 10 is dealing with idolatry, and the sense of the entire chapter is focused on this. The statement "are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar" is compared with being partakers of Christ's Blood and Body via Communion, and it's also compared with knowingly eating food offered to idols making you a partaker of their idolatry. Now, according to that, the passage would mean that ALL who partake of the Lord's Supper are partakers of his one Body. Simply because he calls that group a body does not mean he excludes anyone.

Nay, he includes himself, who is not there in person to be a partaker in the flesh! He is very bold to say that "WE being many are one bread, and one body." Paul is nowhere near Corinth, and since the statements are indefininte ('being many', 'are partakers'), he is not saying "when I was with you" we were a body, but rather that he still was a part of them.

Yea, even moreso he includes ALL by saying that they are one bread and body BECAUSE they are partakers of that one bread. Therefore, any that would be a partaker is elligible for being that one bread and body.

I need not even address your other statments, for you yourself admit that they are based on this verse. Nevertheless, I will add that your further statement that "never did it partake together..." is meaningless. Where in the passage did it specify that ALL the local members had to be partakers at the same time, otherwise it didn't count as real Communion? If that is not a requirement, then why would you make it one for the universal church concept?

Consider this: if one comes to salvation, and enters into fellowship with the believers via the local church, is he not part of the body until he has taken Communion?

-Pluvivs