Open Or Closed Communion

I've always understood it that way and not that we are worthy. Good job, Npetreley. :thumbs:

 

I don't think this fits the definition of church discipline.

On the money.

Yes.

A few verses later, Paul described the congregation at Corinth as follows:
v.27 "Ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

You have accurately outlined the differences in our views.

 

LeBuick, let me add one ore scripture passage.

In Acts 20, Paul is at Miletus, and sends word to the elders at the church at Ephesus to come down to see him.

He gives them some instructions.

V.28 "Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the flock, over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood."

Paul here is speaking to the elders of a local church, which he describes as a flock. It is a specific flock over which the HS has made them overseers. He instructs them to feed that flock (called the church of God). Then he describes that flock (church/congregation) as having been purchased with his own blood.

That includes the true believers in that flock, of course.

The so-called Universal Church, on the other hand, is a useless, imaginery entity which has never carried out one single part of the Great Commission, has never sent a missionary, and has failed miserably at guarding the ordinances. It has never assembled, is fractured and divided, and is riddled with error--if it existed at all.

Local churches may practice these activities imperfectly, and may in fact have false confessors on their rolls. But they are still uniquely suited to obey the GC, uniquely suited to administer the ordinances, and uniquely suited to exercise church discipline.

 

True, but no matter what man made of it, it's still the bride of Christ.

 

Open or closed...

I have put in the time and read every single post that has been written in this thread. Most of it has been well defined and great debate. That is the part that makes this board a blessing. Now if I may add.....
It seems that some say the Lord's Table is:
1) Not at all tied with church discipline.
2) Specifically tied to church discipline.
3) We do not practice church discipline literally, so it doesn't really matter.

Let me ask a question, if I may. If you believe in church disicipline literally and practice open fellowship at the Lord's Table, when it came time to discipline someone out of the fellowship of your assembly would you have anyone who came in the door vote? If you believe in open fellowship and then only allow church members to give their say in a discipline problem you are very inconsistent.

I practice closed and I am IFB unafilliated/unregistered.
Bartimeaus

 

Bartimaeus, please bear with me because I'm sure no theological giant. So if my question seems elementary, please be patient because I'd sincerely like to understand what you are saying that I'm sure seems obvious to you. Can you cite an example in scripture where the sacrements were used to enforce discipline, or is this an argument logically constructed from what is in scriputure? I don't think anyone here wants to violate the holiness of holy communion. Now, I would intentionally exclude myself if I was visiting in a church that taught differently about communion than I believe, such as the Lutherans or the Catholics. I would think that any believer would do that as well. Likewise, I would think that they would exclude themselves at my own church's communion. And of course unbelievers are excluded in any case. But I'm interested in what the basis is for tying the Lord's table to church discipline.

 

By the previous definitions given in post 66 of this thread we are defined as “close” but I would like to give input here.

The attitude of Church discipline should be one of prayer, love, patience, calmness and understanding regardless of the nature of the difficulty or violation. The initial step is not to remove one from the congregation, we should try to restore them first. Gal. 6:1,2 says “restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.”

Matt. 18:15-17 then gives the steps that should be followed through to expulsion.
Now to your questions, as for the local autonomous Church where I fellowship we would follow the above steps with the member maintaining all rights as a member until the point of exclusion. They MAY be removed from any auxiliary or leadership position, ordination or license might be removed, but they will remain a member with full rights to include the Lords Supper until if they are excluded. So I would conclude the Lords Table is tied to membership and not Church discipline.

If one said they were an active member and baptized believer we would likewise let them participate.

“Discipline” for those outside your local Church would be limited to the first few steps of the discipline process keeping an attitude to restore. Jesus said if we found a stranger on the virtual Damascus road in need, we are to stop and do what we can. If we would do this for a stranger, how could we walk by one in the Body of Christ and not do the same? As a known minister in the area, just seeing my face will convict in many instances. An encouraging word might be in order or I once had to pull a man off his wife (he was beating her).

Pastors (the Church actually) do talk (not gissip, talk ) and usually you know what your people are doing. This then shifts discipline responsibility from the Body of Christ to the local Church to watch the person and take action if necessary. This means only members of their local Church would vote if a vote became necessary.

If the man I stopped from beating his wife was at our Church on first Sunday, and if I knew he was not expelled from his Church, I would let him partake of the supper. If I was not sure I would take him at his word. Yes, we look for signs of repentance but often that varies from person to person so we really do you look for?

 

Glad you felt it necessary to explain that.......

 

:laugh: :laugh: :wavey:

Thought I'd better...

 

Open or closed....

First of all what you say is correct and only the most honorable position on excluding yourself. I am simply saying that if it is a private church matter to conduct the biblical responsibility of discipline, why would a church not keep the elements private? If you allow the Lord's Table to the public (word used earlier "stranger" who claims Christ) then you should conduct the responsibility of discipline with the help of the "stranger". It is only consistent. If that "stranger" qualifies for the Table, then why does he not qualify for helping with church discipline?
I appreciate your question it was honest and humble.


Can I throw this one out for all to consider?
Historically there have been many calls for the Lord's Table to be observed in public places. For instance, it has happened before in large city wide crusades where everything under the sun is present and the elements are offered. Do you partake? If there is a value or responsibility for the individual to examine themselves, should you not also examine the administrator?

Bartimaeus

 

Yes because I am worthy.

No, I don't see any where in scripture where we are directed to examine the administrator. Scripture only calls for self examination.

 

This is where we disagree. I contend that the body of Christ and the Bride of Christ are the same thing--a local congregation. My home church is each one. So is yours

I repeat my question: if the local church carries out the Great Commission, and the Universal Church does nothing, what is its reason for existence? The question answers itself.

I do agree that one day there will be one group of saints undivided--the Great General Assembly in Heaven. Until then, it exists only in the prospective sense or in the institutional sense.

 

Well, they seem to me to be two different issues with different biblical instructions regarding each. I think of the matter of baptism, and I have never heard of someone having to be a member of a church before being baptized? How would that be different?

 

Example. The guy in I Cor 5 who was having an affair with his father's wife. Apparently at Paul's urging, they disfellowshipped him from the First Baptist church at Corinth.

So this fellow runs over to the 2nd Baptit church on the other side of town, and walks in to learn that they'll be observing the Lord's Supper. Now, we know his situation but the congregation does not. Will they unknowingly invite this jerk to participate? If they're open communion they will, and undermine the discipline of the FBC Corinth. Out of ignorance, they will harm efforts to restore the man to fellowship. The only way to ensure that this doesn't happen is to restrict communion only to church members who are willing to who are willing to submit to the church's authority.

Now, let's change the scenario a bit. Your church has just kicked this adultrous jerk out of the fellowship. He returns that evening to demand to be served the Lord's Supper. Your church knows him, knows the fellowship has been broken, he is unrepentant, and has refused to stop the affair.

Do you serve him? Probably not. But only because you know the facts.

When you don't know the stranger or his background, or his spiritual condition, it's best to be on the safe side. That's how Church discipline relates to the LS.

 

Under no circumstances should the Lord's Supper be observed like that.

In answer to your second question about the administrator, I say yes. I've found that we Baptists can agree on most of the essentials of believer's baptism except the importance of the administrator. Anyone who baptizes without the express consent of his local congregation is out of order.

 

Open or closed.....

Would you take communion from a Catholic Priest at a city wide crusade?
Would you take communion from a Seventh Day Adventist Pastor at a city wide crusade?
Would you take communion from Benny Hinn at a city wide crusade?

Bartimaeus

 

While at Ft. Jackson, SC in basic training I took communion from a Catholic Priest. He was our Chaplian and all I had. I was also allowed to preach and gave communion at a multi denominational chapel while stationed at Ft. Gordon, GA.

They won't allow me so I don't think this will come to question. I will say they are Christians and part of the Body of Christ even though I don't 100% agree with their beliefs.

And risk getting pushed down by my forehead? I heard it cost to attend his services...

 

Coming into the thread very late, I'll say that the only thing I am really comfortable with is for the one offering the symbols to make clear that they are only for born again believers, and then leave the rest up to those present and God.

Its between them and God whether they are believers or not. And whether they are part of that particular local fellowship or not is completly irrelavent.

Mike

 

No.

Yes.

Yes.


Mike

 

Quote-Bartimaeus
"Would you take communion from a Catholic Priest at a city wide crusade?"

Just curious, why not?