Open Or Closed Communion

Now back to the OP.

Brother Bob has the best of this debate and I join him in advocating closed communion.

I want to make our case from scripture, rather than from emotion, of which there has been plenty in this thread.

First, the scriptures teach that this is a church ordinance, not a christian ordinance.

When Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, it was given to a company of men who made up the first church, instituted earlier in his earthly ministry. This is an assembly, the only organized body known in the New Testament.

When Jesus gave his Great Commission, he gave it to that same assembly. He commissioned them to teach new disciples to observe all the things he had commanded. That commission was the marching orders for each succeeding congregation that was to come.

The Apostle Paul, in I Cor 11, wrote to the church at Corinth, urging them to keep the ordinances just as he had delivered them. He criticized some of their abuses of the Lord's Supper then gave them the correct way "when you come together."

Paul makes it clear that the Lord's Supper is to be served when the congregation is assembled; that it must preserve the integrity of the ordinances, and in fact must scrutinize the qualifications of those who desire to participate.

The local congregation may do this imperfectly, and in fact may be fooled by some false professors, but nonetheless must make those judgments. That's not arrogance, as claimed by a poster or two--it is obedience to the scripture.

That's why the Lord's Supper should never be observed outside the local church assembled. Never at Association meetings or conventions. Never by individuals, either.

I'm going to pause here, since this post is running long. I'll continue to make the case for Closed Communion in the next post. To tease you, I'll end this post with this statement, which undergirds the scripture case:

There is no such thing as the Universal Church.

 

How do you feel about administering to soldiers going into battle?

You say never by individuals, do you believe in taking communion to members who were sick or otherwise not able to be at Church?

 

Okay, let's continue to make the case for closed communion--that is, the Lord's Supper is for members of a local congregation only.

In an earlier post I stated that there is no such institution as the Universal Church. It has no reason for existence. The "Church" may exist in an institutional sense, similar to when we speak of the "family." It may exist in a prospective sense, as when we speak of a great General Assembly in heaven. But the concrete expression of those institutions always is in a specific congregation or a specific family. Only a local church can guard the integrity of the ordinances. Only a local church can assemble.

I have borrowed some of the following from a former pastor of my church, Wendell Rone, Sr., from his 1961 booklet "Believer's Immersion and the Lord's Supper." He says it better than I can.

First, we note that the first Lord's Supper table was restricted. It was restricted to the men of his congregation. BTW, it is not clear that Judas participated. Remember, he left.

The Lord's Supper is restricted as to qualified participates: Those who are regenerated, confessing believers who have been scripturally immersed, and are church members.

The Lord's Supper is restricted to those who are living Christian lives and maintain soundness of doctrine--and may exclude even members of its congregation who demonstrate the lack of such.

The Lord's supper is restricted as to place--where a congregation is assembled, and assembled as a church.

The Lord's Supper is restricted as to purpose: A memorial of the death of Christ for the believer's sins, his resurrection, and the promise of his sure return.

Open Communion, on the other hand, would allow unbaptized people to participate. It would have no way to deny it to an excommunicated member who insisted that he considers himself a Christian.

Open Communion holds that it is the individual's right to just his fitness to participate, not the church. Dr. Rone says that it is the church's right, yes responsibility to judge the fitness of one to be in the congregation. The individual must judge his fitness to "discern the Lord's body. Both are necessary."

The practice of Open Communion feigns a unity among the participants which does not really exist.

It diminishes the importance of doctrinal matters, and renders them unessential.

A personal note: My position places me at odds with my fellow deacon and beloved brother in Christ, saturneptune. His opposition to Communion is fueled by an incident in our church which embarrassed a couple as we were about to observe the Supper. We have agreed that the situation was not handled well. They were denied the right to participate (rightly in my view, but not in the way it was done) We have also agreed to disagree on this matter.

It is my hope that we can appeal to scripture on this subject, and do away with what I have observed as sentimentality, and a cum-ba-yah attitude toward the Lord's precious ordinances.

 

I am compelled by my understanding of the scripture to say that the Lord's supper should not be administered to soldiers going into battle, nor to the sick who are not able to be at church.

I know this sounds harsh, but I don't believe the scripture cuts us any slack in matters like this.

 

I have enjoyed reading this thread and learning a lot from the supporters of closed communion.

The problem I have is that you have just said you want to appeal to Scripture and yet there is no Scripture referred to in the remainder of the post and principles listed.

 

I just remembered that David Lamb, back a few posts ago, asked for some definitions regarding communion. Here are mine:

Open Communion: Any professing Christian, regardless of denomination, may participate. The mode, design, and administrator of baptism is not a barrier. Nor are doctrinal differences. The lack of baptism is not a barrier, either.

Close Communion: Baptists and others of like faith and order may participate. Must have been scripturally immersed.

Closed Communion: Only members of a congregation may participate.

 

Would Paul take communion with the church in Corinth if he was visiting?
After all, he included himself when he said, "
1Co 12:13
(13) For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body--whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.


Now was Paul a member of Corinth?
He was willing to partake in church discipline if he was there...

But...
I thought he was a member of Antioch.

This is why I believe in the universal church.. thus open communion..
but at least you are being consistant, Tom. At least you believe in the local church, and closed communion.. kudos to you for your consistancy.

On a side note...Tom.. you have to put up with Saturneptune?
I'll be prayin for ya brother!!!

JUST KIDDIN!

 

Fair enough, and thanks for pointing out the oversight.

I refer to the Gospel accounts of the night Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper as support for restricting the Lord's table.

I refer to Matthew 28:19-20, the Great Commission to support my view that Jesus committed his ordinances to a local assembly and future assemblies. It also supports my contention that the Commission gives the congregations the authority to determine who shall be its members, and who shall participate in the ordinances.

I refer to I Corinthians 11:17-29 for Paul's instructions on the correct observance of the Lord's Supper. It is always "when you come together."

From these scriptures, one may draw a number of conclusions, which I outlined in the previous posts.

 

It is clear that Judas participated.

 

Couple of questions, How do you know or what would it matter if Judas left before the first communion? The reason I ask, Luke put's this verse immediately following the first communion;

Lk 22:21 But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.

i had believed Judas took the supper which was rolled into the statement of betrayal.

Mt 26:24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.

I'm not sure if Dr. Rone was using scripture in his words. I see scripture encouraging self examination...

1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

I place self examination higher and more thourough than Church examination. Many things go on in a person's heart the Church would not believe true. God knows and the believer knows if they will be truthful in their examination.

 

I guess we use Close and not closed.

What about Churches that allow anyone to partake even non-believers?

 

I have no personal objection to this. What harm is done? IMO, it is more harmful for a believer to partake in an unworthy manner (as some of the Corinthians did by getting drunk, etc.)

 

I fear that word universal because of Moon and his followers. I believe I know what you mean because I know your post and will agree...

1Co 10:15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.
18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.

 

I took from this passage that communion was limited to the body of believers only;

Jn 6:48 I am that bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

 

A poster made the statement that Jesus knew Judas was the betrayer, and yet allowed him to participate in the Lord's Supper. Matthew and John refer to Jesus giving him the "sop," which I'm not sure was part of the Lord's Supper, given Paul's description in I Cor 11:17ff. I'm not making a categorical statement that Judas was not there. I'm saying it's not clear to me either way.

Dr. Rone said specifically that both are necessary. The congregation must exercise its function, even if it is imperfectly done; and the individual must examine himself.

 

Upon reading Luke 22:14 again, I concede your point. You are right and I was wrong.

 

I understood that, I just don't see where scripture agree's with Church examination.

 

These verses don't really teach closed communion. They really only teach the level of connection/commitment we must have with Jesus as believers.

So what if an unbeliever partakes? Will he see eternal life and dwell in Jesus? I assume not -- he's just eating bread and drinking wine in a state of ignorance. Again, what harm was done? If any harm was done to the man for taking communion as an unbeliever, what is that to us? That's between God and the man, isn't it?

 

I think we'd have to speculate on the answer to your questions. We have to remember that Paul was an apostle, not just your regular church member. Even if the answers to your questions are yes, it does not in my mind change anything for me.

About saturneptune: His bark is much worse than his bite. He is actually a sweet-spirited brother with whom I enjoy a wonderful fellowship. But don't let that stop you from praying for me. I need the prayers. You need the practice.