Open, close, closed Communion?

This is a common error and really should be reconsidered by those who hold to it. The reason it is in error is it assumes that because Christ died for our sin and for this reason His body was broken that God's intent in the Lord's Supper is an examination of sin in one's life.

The context of the passage is not about sin in one's life but about the manner in which the Lord's Supper is provided. This is made clear in vs. 20-22 and then made more clear in v. 27 "unworthy manner" (ESV). It is clear that Paul's intentions was to correct the lack of reverence for Christ and His sacrifice:

1Co 11:29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.


Even in v.34 Paul is still speaking of the manner in which the Lord'ssupper is taken:

if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home--so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come.


Sin in the live of Christians never comes into view in this passage.

 

And while I believe Judas is a terrible argument for opening the Lord's Supper to non-church members I do not see in scripture a reason to close it.

 

Very creative timeline, but does it accord with Scripture?

Luke 22:19-21
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.

Judas has left (according to you); now how is his hand still on the table?
Fast onset leprosy?

 

Okay, let's look at the scriptures for the answer: (Thanks to O. H. Griffith for the help).

Let's look at John 13;21-30.

V.21 Jesus says one of the 12 will betray him.

Each one asked, Lord, is it I (Matthew 26:22)

Peter motioned to John to ask Jesus who it was (v.24)

John asked, who is it? (v. 25)

Jesus answered, the one to whom I will give the sop. Remember, nowhere is the bread of the Lord's Supper dipped before it was eaten. Only at the Passover. He gave it to Judas (v. 26)

Then Satan entered Judas, and Jesus said to him, what you do, do it quickly. (v. 27)

Judas immediately left (v.30)

Both Matthew and Mark make it clear that the Passover meal preceded the Lord's Supper. Judas left during the Passover meal.

 

I'm not going to get into this thread, but Tom, you didn't address the passage given , but went elsewhere:

Is this the one passage of scripture that is incorrect?

BTW - I'm not arguing for or against but what you gave only used Mat, and Mark .. but why does the person you quote, leave out Luke?

 

Ben Stratton, a former member of this board, wrote an article for SBC Today, noting that for the first 100 years of its existence, Southern Baptists were closed-communion folks. And so were other Baptist groups before that, some of whom opposed Landmarkism.

Here's part of what he wrote:

Ben Stratton says the rise of open communion coincided with the rise of liberalism within the SBC.

The full article is here: http://sbctoday.com/2008/12/08/restricted-communion-and-the-opponents-of-landmarkism/

 

Yes, the SBC did hold to such but the question isn't whether the SBC held such but whether scripture warrants such. The SBC held to segregation as well claiming it was biblical, but then recanted later. We (those of us in the SBC as a whole) are not perfect but the fact it was done before nor that it was the orthodox view at the time, does it necessitate they were correct.

TOM Stop it.. Your doing it again.. I'm.. dragged.. in...

Nope, I'm done .. Keep the faith brother.

 

Heh heh, Allan, you crack me up. You know what hot buttons to push to drag me in, too.

We could turn the question you asked around and ask why I'm the only one who cited Matthew and Mark's gospel, and I think I'm the only one who used John's account, as well.

Of course, I don't believe the accounts conflict, but sometimes I don't know how to resolve what seem to be differences. Maybe Jerome could offer his thoughts, since he cited the Luke account and none others.

 

No argument here. Scripture always trumps everything else. But the fact that a huge majority of Southern Baptists held to closed communion for a century, and claimed a scriptural basis for that view should not be just blown off. In fact, it is said of Baptists that we are "people of the Book."

19th century Baptists did not just pick closed communion our of thin air.

 

Oh I agree brother. However neither did they move away from it, just out of thin air.

Again, I'm not saying whether or not it is right or wrong, I think there is ample scripture for both sides. Therefore, is it not up to the local assembly?

 

I quite agree. While I personally hold to closed communion, the church I serve is more "close" than "closed." And as a deacon who serves the Lord's Supper, I would not slap the hand of a non-member who reaches for the bread or cup.

It is not a test of fellowship for me. I have been in churches when they observed open Communion. Even though the pastor invited all baptized believers to participate, I declined in order to be consistent with my view.

But this is a debate forum and a great place to test my views in the fire, and seek to persuade others. If I can't persuade, maybe i can at least chip away and create some uncertainty among those who hold different views.

As I'm typing this, my beloved wife Janice walked in and said, "Are you stirring up trouble again?" She knows me well.

 

There is nothing in chapters 5 or 10 that gives any indication that Paul is connecting those chapters with the Lord's Supper. In fact it is without doubt when he exactly makes such a connection.

1Co 11:20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat.
1Co 11:21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk.



That word "for" makes the connection you are looking for. From that point on it is all about the manner.

 

Of course, no congregation has the right to do as it pleases. It is bound by the scriptures. On communion, I agree with your position. My congregation, citing scripture, reaches a different conclusion. It is bound to that position based on its collective reading of scripture.

And so it is for each congregation. No other body may force a different position on it.

And what the SBC did for its first 100 years is not binding on any subsequent congregation. However, the fact that all those churches saw the scriptures the same way for a century is no small factor to consider. And a constant search for truth will demand that we examine the rationale for that view without smugness or arrogance.

We are on the same side, here.

 

I'm trying to understand what you are saying. Are you saying that people who are part of the fellowship yet not members of the church should be able to receive communion? Also People from other denominations should be able to receive communion? Please clarify.