Open/Closed Communion

First, ALOT of people do have a hard time admiting they are sinners.
And now I am just saying that there is no way a pastor or deaken or anyone can stand up and say you are a sinner and you cannot take part. That is not right. This would anger believers and turn them away and only hurt the church instead of the first intentions of helping.

 

I understand your point, however, let all things be done decently and in order. I believe, humbly, we do more harm to the work and unity of the church by refusing to properly discipline errant members. Just MHO.

I am not saying this authority is vested or resting in the pastor or the deacons. In truth it rests in the congregation. When done properly it will restore the errant member and not offend any. If ignored it will disrupt the fellowship of the body with the Holy Spirit.

The authority rests in the body alone in accordance with Scripture. I do not deny some may abuse this, but that is not reason enough to discontinue it, after all it is found in scripture.

The order is that this first be handled privately and discreetly. If this fails then the scenario is to take witnesses, only when this fails is the issue brought before the church.

Can this ever be a misunderstanding? Yes, that is why the proper way is to approach the individual personally. If discipline is handled Biblical it will be seasoned with Grace and it will not create problems.

If the scenario I gave above were true and I refuse to hear you, and you and the witnesses or the church in due order, then the church has lost nothing when I, or my friends and family becomes offended and leaves the church.

Bro. Dallas

 

If we are to be governed by Scripture, there can be no such thing as truly "open" communion. At least 3 passages in I Corinthians absolutely limit the Lord's table. Chapter 5 - no openly immoral person. Chapter 10 - no admittedly lost person ("table of demons"). Chapter 11 - no divisions! The simple way to observe those clear Scriptural limitations without judging anyone is to limit the table to those who are in fellowship with a local congregation, and let them examine themselves. After all, that line in I Cor. 11 was written to members of that local church.

R. Charles Blair - Ro. 8:28

 

In our church, we practice closed communion.
Here's why:
When the apostle Paul was teaching on this subject, he never included himself in taking the Lord's table with the churches.
Since this ordinance is a part of discipline given to the local church, how could he take part when he was not a part of that local church?
Consider this: If your child needs punished... you don't ask the man down the street to punish them.... YOU DO IT. AND, you don't have the right to enter another man's house and punish his children either.
This discipline is between the Lord and His church to be led and offered by that shepherd who He has placed over those sheep.

 

Frogman asked:

Dr. Bob, can you expand on these, especially the differences between close and closed.

Both models place a "fence" around the Lord's table. The fundamental difference is who does this.

In "closed" communion, it is the pastors/elders who place restrictions on who may or may not participate (typically only members in good standing of that local assembly).

In "close" communion, the elements are offered to all who are in Christ, along with warnings against partaking unworthily, but it is left to the indvidual to examine himself and decide whether to do so.

I personally believe that Scripture points to a "close" model rather than a "closed" or "open" one. I also believe, however, that pastors/elders have the moral duty of guarding the table against those under discipline or known to be unbelievers.

 

Groves1611 said:

When the apostle Paul was teaching on this subject, he never included himself in taking the Lord's table with the churches.

Well, of course not. When he wrote the first letter to the Corinthians in which he taught explicitly on the subject, he was in Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:8). He couldn't very well include himself in the Lord's table from 200 miles away on the other side of the Aegean, could he?

how could he take part when he was not a part of that local church?

Again - why assume he is making a point about church polity when simple geography is an adequate explanation?

Consider this: If your child needs punished... you don't ask the man down the street to punish them.... YOU DO IT. AND, you don't have the right to enter another man's house and punish his children either.

But isn't this what Paul does - in the very same letter - when he commands the Corinthians to expel the man who is sleeping with his mother (1 Cor. 5:3-5)? You can't have it both ways.

 

No! Paul himself was not doing the discipline here.... He was offering his advice and leadership to them. He was their teacher.
It was their job to do the act. Paul himself didn't touch it.

 

My church has open communion every week.

I guess I never thought that it could be any other way..

 

We have "close" communion every quarter...

 

I have been told that the man who will be preaching his "candidating" sermon at our church will be conducting communion differently than we are used to. We usually do the "close" concept where the restrictions are made clear, and then the elements are presented to all, served in the pew by the deacons. He is going to ask those who wish to partake to come to the front, I suppose in the manner that I have seen in Methodist churches. Do you think this is because he thinks only true believers would not be intimidated by having to take this overt action? Or because he does not know us?

 

Maybe that's just the style he's used too. I personally think that we should switch styles every so often. I was asked to have communion in a church I was candidating in about 8 years ago and I remember having them to come forward. I don't remember why though.
It's late and my brain is just not working.

 

I think you would have a hard time proving that the Lord's Supper was given specifically to the local congregation. I also am having a hard time reconciling the issue of church discipline and whether the practice of taking the Lord's Supper should be open, close, or closed. Ultimately, this matter has to come down to the spiritual condition of the individual. Church membership does not guarantee that any individual will be taking the meal in a worthy or unworthy manner.

While there are times when the Word tells us that discipline may need to occur, because of the actions of believer. I would not feel comfortable being the one deciding who is and who is not able to come to the Lord's Table. I am not the keeper of the Table. If someone comes that should not or in an unworthy manner, Paul clearly states in I Cor 11 that the Lord takes care of them.

Just some thoughts from a fellow servant,
Bro Tony

 

My church practices open communion, although, from my understanding, this is more church tradition than an ordinance by the pastor or deacons, though I could be incorrect.

 

What if you don't have communion service in a Indep. Bapt. church.

 

What if you don't have communion service in a Indep. Bapt. church.

 

My experience has been that churches who practice either close or closed communion do so on Sunday nights to help avoid any awkeardness.Usually it is the members who show up at the evening services and not visitors. That helps to keep awkwardness to a minimum.Even then the pastor will explain to all present that the Lords'Supper is for the saved and those who are right with God.

 

Thanks, I understand now. I had confused these two. We practice closed communion, that is each quarter, members only. As I said in another post, we believe this correct scripturally.

Plain Old Bill, we do practice communion on Sunday evenings, it was awkward when I first started attending, because I didn't understand that as a non-member, I was suppose to only attend on Sunday morning
Bro. Dallas