Open, close, closed Communion?

No, the bottom line is "thus saith the Lord" as no church has authority to do as they please even though they may freel disobey God's Word. Their action is not the standard of right or wrong.

If you think there are misapplied verses, I for one, would like to know what they are and why they are? I don't think you can back up what you are saying!

The Lord's Supper like baptism is to be administered to PROFESSING people of God as the administrators cannot go beyond that and therefore the ordinances cannot go beyond that. To argue proper administration on the basis of the heart of a person goes beyond the administrator's ability and so to make that the basis for proper administration is simply ignorance gone wild.

Those who make your line of argument simply dismiss chapters five and ten as relating to the Lord's Supper and then ignore I Cor. 11:18-20. I could have used verses 18-20 to totally disprove open communion as a valid Biblical alternative as such division that exists in the so-called u-church is obvious and yet it is that very kind of schism that Paul says prohibits any observation to be rightly called "the Lord's Supper" (v. 20).

If you are serious and want a serious discussion about the pertinent scriptures and facts then the door is wide open.

 

Judas is not a valid argument at all. Have you studied the jewish observation of the Passover and the four differen cups that divide the passover observation. Obviously not or you would not even suggest Judas is a valid argument. Of course historical context may not be even a factor in your rules of intepretation.

I don't have any idea what kind of church you are talking about where the majority are lost members. By the way how do you know they are lost members? Such a conclusion is very revealing about attitude.

Obviously you have either not read my posts on this subject or don't understand them. They are filled with "thus saith the Lord" and by the statement "thus saith the Lord" I mean SCRIPTURE. You have yet to demonstrate where I abused any scriptural reference in 1 Cor. 5, 10 or 11. Get to the point and demonstrate if you can?

I Corinthians 11:18-20 has reference to the schism in the church first introduced in I Corinthians 1:12-13 where they were divided into fractions or little denominational parties following a particular personality. This CONDITION that introduces Paul's conclusion that what they were observing was not to be recognized as "the Lord's Supper" followed by a MANNER that abused it as well (vv. 21-23). The u-church is in this same condition - divided in worship, divided in doctrine, divided in leadership. The symbolism of the "unleavened" bread demands that no such OPEN and KNOWN division is to be present if the Supper is to be a valid observation as "valid" depends upon meeting the symbolism in the Supper just as much as "valid" depends upon meeting the symbolism in baptism. A church cannot possibly observe "open" communion and avoid knowing it invites those who are not in UNITY to participate.

Now, I apologize for being abrasive, as that only creates heat and not light. I would like to discuss this with you in gentlemanly manner if that is possible.

 

A word about Judas and closed communion

The proper administration of the Lord's Supper is for baptized believing church members and this can be demonstrated first by precept in Matthew 28:19-20 as further illustrated in Acts 2:41-42 all of which compared with I Cor. 5, 10,11. Observation of "all things commanded" follows gospel conversion and baptism in the Great Commission. The third aspect of the commission "teaching them to observe all things" follows church membership as demonstrated in Acts 2:41 "added unto them" and necessarily so, because the third aspect is impossible to obey apart from church membership. Therefore, baptism is for believers and the Lord's supper is for baptized believing church members as that is the order in the commission and in its first spelled out administration. Notice breaking of bread follows "added unto them" in Acts 2:41-42 rather than precedes it.

Judas was a lost man from the beginning (Jn. 6:64-65) who made a false profession and yet Christ selected him purposely and placed him in the church. Paul tells the Corinthians that God purposely allows such in the church to manifest those who are truely his (I Cor. 11:19).

Closed communion is not determined by the UNKNOWN but by the KNOWN. Judas was UNKNOWN to all but Christ and there was no MANIFEST evidence to make Judas KNOWN to the church and only omniscience realized it. Paul does not make what is UNKNOWN TO THE CHURCH the basis of restricting the Lord's supper. The problem in chapter five was what was "COMMONLY REPORTED" not what was unknown to the church. The problem in chapter eleven in regard to the individual was UNKNOWN TO THE CHURCH but known to the individual and what was KNOWN to the individual was what invalidated the Supper to that individual. In neither case (chapter five or chapter eleven) did Christ lead Paul to say that proper administration depended upon the UNREVEALED condition of any member lost or saved. Judas could have observed the Supper and it was still a closed communion - closed to professing baptized church members whose spiritual status and condition were UNREVEALED TO THE CHURCH.

However, we are told that Judas left after the sop had been dipped and given him. The sop was dipped at the close of the second cup in the passover before the third cup which was called "the cup of blessing." Hence, Judas did not participate in the third cup where the Lord's Supper was instituted.

 

We do practice strict discipline and therefore we do keep our rolls clean. We have an automatic policy that if a member misses for six straight months they are automatically placed under church discipline. So we do not have to deal with obvious and open and defiant participants because they have already been dealt with previous to the Lord's Supper. In addition, if there is questionable evidence of an open problem we do not observe the Lord's Supper until there is no obvious questionable evidence that would prevent it.

The Roman Catholic chuch and the cambellites believe in the Trinity too. The Mormons believe in immersion for baptism. That kind of reasoning would lead to giving everything up due to what others either believe or don't believe. I made my arguments based upon what the scriptures explicitly state not what others may or may not practice.

It is not the "manner" but the CONDITION that is the problem in I Cor. 11:18-20 although the CONDITION leads to the wrong manner as in I Cor. 11:21-22. They had a CONDITION of open DISUNITY.

The element in the cup applies to all the elect and is the symbol of the "new covenant" redemption. However, the "unleavened" bread is a symbol of sanctified preparation to observe the Supper as a "new lump" which involves removal of "commonly reported" members leavened in those things listed in 1 Cor.5:11 as well as schisms and thus the spiritual preparation in advance of the Supper including personal holiness, spirit of unity as one body in Christ.

 

I never assume that because a person is a church member they are saved. However, we never accept anyone into the church that does not profess salvationa and therefore we treat them as such unless there is sufficient evidence to think otherwise. If there is sufficient evidence to think otherwise, it is usually manifested sooner or later in wrong behavior and/or wrong beliefs and then it is subject for disciplinary processes to begin.

I believe the words "not to eat" with such a one have direct contextual reference to the Lord's Supper (vv. 7-8 - "let us keep the feast").

I think "commonly reported" simply means it is made sufficiently obvious to more than church members but to the world that interacts with that person. The public testimony of Christ's church is on the line in the public arena so that the lost world has sufficient reason to scoff at the profession of the church in the community.

I am sorry but I don't quite follow your last argument about Judas. Perhaps you can clarify your point.

 

I fully agree with your point!

 

We have done it a number of ways. I announce the week before that we will have the Lord's Supper after services when all visitors have left. Sometimes I have simply given a short explanation to our visitors that has a two fold aim (1) make it clear that we do not want to offend them; (2) explain that we believe it is a church ordinance designed for the maintenance of church membership. We have literature dealing with the issue that we make available for anyone who really wants to know why we practice it the way we do.

 

I agree with you that the presentation is the key. The same can be said of baptism when a believer comes to your church for membership but his baptism is not valid due to an improper administrator or mode. The way this is handled can do a lot of damage or be very instructive and helpful.

 

Open communion allows anyone present to partake if they feel they qualify regardless of their spiritual state, life, or denominational affiliation or beleif and practices.