Featured Open membership threatens Baptists’ most central distinctive

We hold that ALL on the Church roll in heaven free to partake communion!

regardless if members of the local church, members of the true church!

 

My beloved brother Saturneptune and I serve the same church. We naturally agree on a lot of things, but communion is not one of them.

He, of course, opposes closed communion, as he has posted. I, on the other hand, am for it.

I hold that baptism and the Lord's Supper are local church ordinances. And Paul admonished the church at Corinth to "guard the ordinances." (I Cor 11:2). In that same chapter, Paul instructs the congregation on the right way and wrong way to observe the Lord's Supper. Thus, the Lord's Supper is observed only by a local church, and only its members may participate.

Earlier, Old Regular posted "No baptism, no communion." He is exactly right. The scriptures are clear that only baptized believers participated. Unfortunately, that excludes those not scripturally baptized.

Those who hold that the LS is a Christian ordinance instead of a local church ordinance will come out at a different place. And those who hold that the individual is the sole arbiter of his fitness to take communion will also arrive at a different conclusion.

This is an interesting thing: Jesus, who restricted the first LS to the twelve, further restricted it to eleven. Jesus did not begin until Judas left the group.

Open communionists will find themselves in a sticky position when faced with a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness or Roman Catholic who wants to participate in their church's LS. To insist that such a decision is left to the individual is to ignore Paul's admonition to guard the Lord's table. And it is to ignore Paul's warning that some who take the LS in the wrong way were either dead or sick.

Oops, sorry, I've somewhat derailed the thread. But it certainly demonstrates that where you start determines where you come out.

 

I can find no Scriptural basis for any other requirement being placed against someone for Church membership or for taking Communion other than a profession of faith. In 1 Cor 11 God, through Paul, tells the individual to examine himself, not to be examined by the pastor, elders, or anyone else.

As to Church membership I use the capital "C" in order to demonstrate my belief in the membership being universal as opposed to local. This is because I see every blood bought man, woman, and child to be a member. Again, I look to God speaking through Paul who said he determined to know nothing among them except Christ and Him crucified. Far to often we add requirements to these things (like having a class before baptism) when God Himself did not burden the people in these ways.

I think the idea of and LDS or JW wanting to have Communion with us is a non-starter. It simply is either not going to happen or is so rare that it is a non-issue. Keep in mind that Paul wrote to believers, members of the Church as opposed to pagans. The error in 1 Cor 11 is not about following false gods, or being a false convert. We misunderstand this passage when we forget the context in which it was written. Just as when Jesus instituted this new covenant meal it was done during another meal. In 1 Cor 11 the people were gathered for a common (shared) meal and teaching. During this meal Communion was taken. Some were getting drunk and making pigs of themselves. Those who were dead and sick neglected to remember the purpose of the meal and instead made it an occasion to stuff their face and deny others the opportunity to eat and drink.

We need to remember that the Passover and Communion are both covenant meals. Of course, it would help if more people actually understood what that means.

 

Tell ya what......I like what your saying (however black & white you choose to paint it). your last comment however is a bit condescending & judgmental. If you feel the flock do not understand, perhaps you should give definition vs what you just proclaimed. Hint Hint!!

 

What does your church practice?

How does a closed communion church work in practice? If a Catholic or Mormon was in attendance and took of the cup/bread, what would you guys do?

 

I am not sure why that statement was seen as condescending or judgmental, but I apologize if that impression was given.

It would take quite a bit of time to go through the process of really explaining this however I'll try to nutshell before I head out to some concerts with my family. That being the case I encourage people to study the covenant processes in Jewish culture and go back a re-study Passover to get it fresh in your minds. I would also an encourage people to really look at the elements used, and the process of, the Seder (or Passover) meal and consider when, in this process, that Jesus introduced the New Covenant.

In the process of making a covenant the two parties would share a meal. In the future when the people involved would eat the same meal, consider the Passover, the people involved would remember the covenant and their responsibility regarding it. The Passover reminded the Jews of their place in relationship to God as His called-out people.

It is during a Passover meal that Jesus does what? He introduces the New Covenant, using just wine and bread, in the midst of that Old Covenant meal. Jesus, of course, became the lamb and perfect fulfillment of that Old as He initiated the New. So then as we engage in this meal, commemorating the New Covenant in His blood, we are to be reminded of what He did as His part and who we are for our part. To fail to discern the body (per 1 Cor 11) is to make Communion just another meal and to deny, or forget, the Covenant and the cost Christ paid.

 

I think this is an excellent post!

 

Good post. I would extend your remarks about people making pigs out of themselves not only at Communion meals back at that time, but at regular church pots lucks today, that are apart from Communion. Gluttony is a sin as much as any of our favorite sins to condemn. Most churches overlook the subject, and some even make jokes or light of stuffing ourselves like pigs. There is no excuse for it in the house of God. It is another form of self indulgence and abuse of the body, and there is nothing funny about it. Frankly, it is a disgrace. That goes for the gossip that is rampant also.

The bottom line is each local church sets the standard for themselves. For Communion, they can set closed (church roll), close (Christians baptised by immersion by other churches of like faith and order), or open, (any professing Christian).

If one does not agree with the church in their administration of Communion, find one that does. It is that simple.

I do notice one subject that has been ignored is membership requirements. Acts is quite clear. People were added to the church daily. They did not sign up for the latest handy, dandy indoctination course, enroll in a communicants class, memorize the Church Covenant before being accepted, or renew their membership every year.

Once a member, everyone is responsible for supporting the local church with their tithes, talents and time as the Lord leads. I have a question for those who believe in a time delay for membership. Why is it, after the perspective member has met whatever requirements are set, that the new member is not made to answer for their attendance, giving, and ministry over time? Why did you bother to go through the motions of a six week program, then either the pew sitters or non attenders or non supporters are still on the rolls decades later? Seems kind of backwards to me.

I would also like to remind everyone concerned that membership requirements, closed communion and the like are practices of the Catholic Church, Church of Christ, LDS, and some Protestant faiths. One of our distinctives is immersion after salvation as a public statement of faith in Jesus Christ. That sets us apart from the Catholics or denominations that came from the RCC. Again, each and every Baptist church sets its own policy.

One point of clarification, members of organizations like LDS and JWs are not eligible for Communion, as they are not believers in Jesus Christ, fully divine and fully God.

 

Actually, I am a member of a church which practices "close" communion, which means Baptists of like faith and order may participate.

That means my"closed" view is a minority view in my church. But I do not make an issue of it, and it is not a test of fellowship for me (or I would have been kicked out decades ago). But this is a discussion forum, where all views are solicited.

As a practical matter, the bread tray is passed down each row, and we don't slap the hands of non-members who participate. Same with the cup container.

The "closed" view relies on the concept of church discipline. If one who has been disfellowshipped from another congregation shows up on Communion Night, it would be an insult to the other church to permit him to partake.

In I Cor 5, regarding the man who had an illicit relationship with his father's wife, Paul said the congregation was not even to eat with him. Since the fellowship mean was often followed by the LS, that's one of the bases for my view.

 

Thank you for your explanation.

Have a good concert!

 

Another excellent post!

 

All very good points Tom!

 

Here's a scenario to consider. Your congregation has disfellowshipped a member for a flagrant sin (pick one). One Lord's Supper night, this fellow shows up. Will your church permit him to partake?

If you are an "open" church what is your rationale for refusing him, if at all?
If you are a "close" church, will you refuse him?

If you are a "closed" church, the question won't even come up.

I visited an "open" church one Sunday morning in the Memphis area. Before serving, the pastor clearly outlined the church's position. He basically invited all believers to partake. Naturally, I didn't participate. But I appreciated his making clear its policy. I wish more churches would do that.

 

Why do we make a man made creation, the church roll, the standard for the Lord's Supper in lieu of examining yourself as Scripture says. This is practiced by the RCC, LDS, and the Church of Christ, closed, fine examples.

Consider this senario. It is the Lords Supper day, and two people walk in. One is a church member who has not been in months or years. He shows no signs of regeneration, or any spiritual qualities. Another person drops in, a truck driver because he saw a church and wanted to worship. Under closed communion, we are going to serve a lost person and refuse to serve a child of God.

I have seen closed communion in action a couple of times, and poorly handled. It is mean spirited, divisive, exclusionary, and not edifying. We have lost potential members that had visited several times.

One of the arguments for closed communion is that we do not know the standing of the person from another church partaking. Well, you certainly know the status of the wayward member who showed up, and serve him anyhow.

 

Curious as to how you don't permit people to partake since you don't slap hands?

You guys go the same church, correct?

Good point. I really object some taking upon themselves to make those types of decisions and presuming such authority over communion in the body of believers, the Church.The first I witnessed someone being refused would be the last I attended there.

 

It is not "just some taking on themselves"; it is the local Church and they have that right. Those who are sufficiently disturbed should walk away.

 

Actually the church roll should not be man made. I believe it was you who noted the occasion in Acts about the Lord adding to the Church "daily".

You are making the judgment as to which one is saved. If the church member is unsaved and gives evidence he should be dealt with by the Church. As for the truck driver only God knows in this instance.

I thought your Church practiced "close" communion.

As I said earlier you may or may not know the status of the wayward member.

I lean toward closed communion, that is participation only by Church members in good standing. I reject open communion entirely. From a practical sense close communion, that is all partaking have been Baptized in a Church of like faith and order, is perhaps the best way to go. If handled properly there should be no problem. The pastor simply announces the Church policy and any Christians present should honor that policy. One of my best friends is a long time Presbyterian elder [PCA]. As much as I love him I would not want him to take communion in the Church where I am a member. I certainly would not take communion in his Church. I guess the only thing he and I disagree on is infant baptism and the mode of baptism. So we agree to disagree.

I will add that some of the most sacrilegious behavior I have observed in Church worship has occurred during communion. I have seen teen aged boys toasting each other with the cup, all while we are to be remembering the death of Jesus Christ. Many Southern Baptist Churches observe communion once a quarter. Frankly I do not believe that is adequate. That being said even the 3 month observance is meaningless to many.

 

In regards to communion, we are to examine ourselves only. If we feel worthy enough(not that we by ourselves are worthy, but only worthy through the workings of God), we then take it. We are not supposed to examine others. Those who partake unworthily(sp?) shall answer for themselves.

 

For those here who do not believe in open communion, do you suppose you will feel the same way in heaven? How do you think Jesus would feel about that?

 

I agree completely.