1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Open Or Closed Communion

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Bro. Williams, Sep 22, 2007.

  1. saturneptune

    saturneptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    2
    There is one thing I have learned from this thread, most minds are made up on this subject and are not likely to be changed.
     
  2. npetreley

    npetreley New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    2
    This thread? Don't you mean all threads? ;)
     
  3. convicted1

    convicted1 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    28
    RE: Open or closed communion?

    In the ORB communion service, we have our regular service, followed by a "break" while the deacons set the table and pour the water. We are then called back in by a song. After the singing stops, the moderator sometimes preaches and then reads verses that coincide(sp?) with the bread and fruit of the vine. After this, all ordained authority(Elders and Deacons) wash their hands and break the bread into smaller pieces. They also pour the fruit of the vine into cups. After they serve each other, they then go around in groups of two(one has the bread, the other the fruit of the vine). After everyone is served(professed and baptized believers), the moderator reads from John 13 and how Jesus washed the disciples feet. The water is then poured into basins. The Moderator and assistant Moderator start washing each other's feet, and then everyone follows suit. This is when the SHOUTING starts!! Glory! The reason why I typed our practice out is this: the sinners set out in the crowd while ALL of this is going on. They know they aren't "able" to partake because they are sinners. If one was to come up while this is going on, and say that God had saved them, someone will take them out and baptize them, and let them partake. I have never witnessed this, but I pray that I do. I witnessed someone being baptized prior to the Sacrament, though. I understand both sides of the argument, but I will keep my opinion to myself. It does "boil down" to each of us examining ourselves, no one else. We don't know our brother's or sister's heart, so somtimes we may have someone amongst us who isn't what they say they are. I pray that this hasn't happened, but the wheat and tares do grow in the same field together. Jesus will seperate us into His "barn", and the tares/chaff will be burned up forever.

    Willis
     
    #163 convicted1, Sep 29, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 29, 2007
  4. LeBuick

    LeBuick New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    1
    I thought it was a prerequisite to board membership. I’m right, you are wrong now let me toll you why you’re wrong…
     
  5. JerryL

    JerryL New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    972
    Likes Received:
    0
    QUOTE
    Originally Posted by npetreley
    I don't know if you're referring to my comment, but let me clarify something. I'm not a pastor, I have no desire to be one, and I'm certainly not qualified. But if I were a pastor, I would certainly not announce that the communion is for everyone, including unbelievers. That is definitely not what I meant when I said I don't see the harm in unbelievers partaking. I would simply explain the communion and then have the elements passed around. Whoever takes it, takes it.
    UNQUOTE

    That's how our Pastor does it. He explains what it means and it is only for believers to partake of it, then we pass out the meal through the aisles. the people decide if they are in a place to partake. Who are we to try to decide whos saved or not.
     
  6. bubba jimmy

    bubba jimmy New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, I've never said that. What I've said is that a visitor, lets say from another state, is visiting with the local congregation and professes to be a born again child of God, a brother in Christ. When the time comes to take communion I do not see any valid basis on which that person can be excluded. If you know the person is lying, that is different. If you have specific information that he is someone you should not fellowship with, that is different. But, to assume that every fellow believer is too suspect to partake with because I haven't fellowshipped enough to be able to judge whether he is worthy or not, is wrong - in my opinion and understanding. When we get too involved in sniffing for sin we lose sight of love, and brotherly love and fellowship is lost or damaged. There is a point of balance. But unless you know something to exclude the person, the condition of their heart is up to God because we can only judge the outward appearance. There are wolves in our very midst who can go undetected for a long time. That is God's business, and He will protect us from the enemy in our midst if we trust Him. When we try to do His job, I think we get into trouble.



    Is it worse to let a man guilty of murder to go free, or is it worse to unintentionally execute and innocent man? If I partake in communion with a man who is unworthy, does it harm me or does it harm him? If he deceives me by saying he is a believer, will God not handle that situation in some fashion? If I place my trust in Him alone, and not my own judgement, how can that be wrong? I can handle the part that I'm responsible for, which is not to open communion to unbelievers. God has to handle matters of the heart.
     
  7. bubba jimmy

    bubba jimmy New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    97
    Likes Received:
    0
    But what about the beliver who is visiting, and you therefore don't have this knowledge? Whom are we protection by excluding him? We are not protecting God, because the unbeliever who take communion has no capacity to hurt God. He's already an unbeliever, so his sins and depravity are already there. Do we harm ourselves by including a professed brother in fellowship about whom we know nothing that would exclude him? If he lies, God does not warn us that we should have checked him out better. Maybe hire a committee to go to his house and inverview his wife and children? Neighbors? Co-workers? If we know, we act. But some churches treat the visitor as a lost sinner. If we assume the visiting believer and follower of Chirst is a sinner, and we exclude him, how are we doing right? I ask again, where does scripture give us instruction or even authority to act in that way?
     
  8. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    In post 63 I said that it is not clear that Judas participated in the Lord's Supper, since he left.

    In post 70,
    And he cited:

    Since then I have run across a comment by O. H. Griffith, who says that it is in fact, perfectly clear that Judas did not participate.

    He cites John 13:21-30.

    Griffith goes on to say
     
    #168 Tom Butler, Sep 30, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 30, 2007
  9. npetreley

    npetreley New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    2
    Griffith starts with his conclusion and then uses logical fallacies to make scripture fit the conclusion. His "reasoning" contradicts Luke, which makes it clear Judas was there for the Lord's supper.
     
  10. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    I'm curious. I'm assuming that even the open communion advocates here all agree that the Lord's Supper is for believers only. Beyond that, we seem to be all over the lot.

    I'm a strong believer in in the truism that where you start determines where you end up. So here's a quiz of sorts to see where you start, and if it's consistent with where you've ended up.

    1. Would you allow an unbaptized person to take the Lord's Supper?

    2. Would you define scriptural baptism as the immersion of a believer by an ordained Baptist minister or deacon acting under the authority of a local church? Or immersed by a minister or deacon ordained by a church of like faith and order?

    3. If not, what's your definition?

    4. Would you accept as valid immersion that which is held to be sacramental?

    5. Would you permit one to participate who had merely been sprinkled or poured?

    4. Would you accept as valid immersion by a church which holds to baptismal regeneration? This is similar to #4

    5. Would you accept as valid immersion by a church which believes one may lose his salvation?

    6. Would you welcome someone who was baptized as an infant? Or comes from a paedobaptist church?

    7. Would you welcome an immersed Mormon to the Lord's table?

    8. Would you welcome to the Lord's table someone with whom you have serious doctrinal disagreements?

    9. Would you welcome to the Lord's table someone recently disfellowshipped from your Baptist church for flagrant sin or a disorderly walk?

    10. Would you welcome someone disfellowshipped from another Baptist Church?

    11. Should your church even observe the Lord's Supper in the middle of conflict in your congregation? If so, why so?

    12. Of those whom you would welcome to the Lord's table, which ones would you deny membership in your church? Which would you admit?

    13. How close would you describe your views to Baptists as far back as years ago--the majority of which held to closed communion?

    Feel free to defend your answers, of course.

    Your answers could help us to quit talking past each other and get to the real reasons we hold the views we do.
     
    #170 Tom Butler, Sep 30, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 30, 2007
  11. LeBuick

    LeBuick New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    1
    I thought there was a difference between close and closed? There were difinitions previously posted.

    What makes this statement so true? I started out going to hell but don't think that's my final destination... Some where along the way, I decided to make Heaven my home.
     
  12. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    I went back to my post #60 to see my definitions.

    Some open communion folks might have some variations in the definition, but so far in this thread the only one I have detected is that the believer ought to be baptized, but the mode is not important.


    I'm mainly referring to beliefs, doctrines and practices. Example: If one denies God's omniscience, he will likely inevitably wind up as an Open Theist. If you hold to a Universal Church, then Open Communion is a logical outgrowth of that belief--and rejection of Closed Communion is also an inevitable outgrowth.

    In the course of my theological journey, I have changed my views several times--and it took a lot of other things in a different direction as well.

    Looks as if that happened to you. As long as you persisted in unbelief, the inevitable outcome was hell. When you changed from unbelief to belief, so did your destination.

    So, do you want to take a crack at the quiz?
     
  13. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    I'm bumping this thread to see if anybody would like to take a crack at the questions I posed in post #170.

    I also went back to I Cor 11 17ff. It is there that Paul speaks of divisions and heresies in the Corinth congregation. I read Paul's comments to mean that as long as there are such, they shouldn't take the Lord's Supper. Further, that while such divisions and heresies exist, calling it the Lord's Supper doesn't make it so.

    When we open the Lord's table to any professing believer, regardless of denomination, we are inviting division and heresy into our midst.

    We also risk doing the same thing when we invite other Baptists or those of like faith and order to participate, because they are strangers to us. There are even heretics and troublemakers who claim to be Baptists. The risk is too great to risk condemnation for even unknowingly inviting outsiders to the table.

    There are Baptist churches in our area which accept alien baptism. They have created a division by their actions.

    When Paul wrote to the Corinth church, he not only told the members to examine themselves, but he counseled the congregation to get its act together as well. Otherwise, I think he's saying, taking the Lord's Supper is a farce.
     
    #173 Tom Butler, Oct 5, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2007
Loading...