Open Or Closed Communion

So far, this discussion has been quite interesting, and quite revealing.

We have those who would place no restrictions whatever on who takes communion--even allowing unbelievers to participate. Man oh man, what a sheltered life I've led.

The prinicpal justification for open communion is that the individual is supreme, and no church can pass judgment on one's fitness to take it. I guess "by their fruits you shall know them" doesn't apply here.

I've also been operating on the premise that following the scriptures is more important than hurting someone's feelings.

I've learned that many of us would admit to the Lord's table the same folks we would not allow to be members of our congregation. Wait, that's not quite right. We have some Baptist churches in our area who will admit to membership those who have been sprinkled or have been immersed by churches not of like faith and order.

I thought I had lost the capacity to be surprised by what my Baptist brethren believe and practice. Then I'm amazed again.

 

The key to not taking communion in those three questions is a "city wide crusade." That is not the issue. The issue is within the authority of the local church, which is where the Lord's Supper should be administered, or at least who it should be administered by, the issue is does the local church have the right to vote to administer open communion. Without a doubt, the local church does. If a member of that church cannot live with that decision, he needs to find a church that does practice like he or she believes. That goes for the opposite way also.

 

I believe the church has a responsibility to see the Lord's Supper, is carried out in a sacred manner ,and in order to do that you have to have authority over who is invited to take communion. I know we can give extreme examples, but it applies to not so extreme examples also. Anyone who takes communion with us are those, who are of us period. Let others do as they may, as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord and make as sure as possible, that His Body and Blood are kept in the highest esteem. If I error, it will be on the side of protecting the sacredness of the communion.

BBob,

 

I can't argue with that Bro Bob, I think in the end, none of us wants to purposely go against God's word so we adhear to scripture the best we understand. :thumbs:

 

One can do nothing but respect Brother Bob's devotion and sincerity to his ministry and the welfare of those he leads.

This has actually been the best thread on open/closed communion I have seen. The opinions are well thought out, and easy to follow.

 

On the money, Brother Bob.

I've always been mystified by those who will sit down at the Lord's table with those who oppose much of what we believe and call it communion. They will permit those to participate who hold to sacramentalism, sacerdotalism, unscriptural modes, designs and subjects of baptism; those who reject Baptist polity and practice; and deny the authority of the church for whom Jesus shed his blood to judge them in any way.

Open communion forces advocates to endorse error, fellowship with those in error, and pretend that they are in unity.

Seems to me it is this failure has led to bloated church rolls, to churches who can barely get 30% of their members to attend any service, to so-called believers whose only testimony is that they "said the prayer," and whose lives give no evidence of conversion.

 

Absolutely, nobody should ever be given communion if they are not professing believers. I just can't find anywhere in my Bible where denial of communion is to be used as a punishment in church discipline.

In the example given, where a brother is put out of fellowship and goes across town, who am I to judge. Between here and there, he may well repent and seek the fellowship of other beleivers at the Lord's Supper. When the preacher gives the warning not to take communion unworthily but to examine himself, then he has followed what scripture teaches. Scripture instucts each man to examine himself when it comes to the Lord's supper. It does not charge the church to examine him and make sure he is worthy. I think we need to be careful not to add to what is in scripture, and not to create rules based on our traditions and not scripture. That is what Catholics do.

"For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. " 1 Corinthians 11:31

 

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.

 

Npet, thanks for the clarification. Giving instruction about the communion should certainly be done, and like you, I probably wouldn't slap the and of someone who should not take it.

But this reinforces my argument that there is a way to prevent that from happening. Simply restrict communion to the members of your congregation. By laying the proper groundwork and with the proper explanations, there should be no embarrassment or hurt feelings by those who are denied it.

 

Your answer of "Between here and there, he may well repent and seek the fellowship of other believers at the Lord's Supper", is very interesting. I would say repent means to go back to the people he owes an answer to and get that right first is real repentance. Anything else is a just playing church. How can this person take the Lord's Table (examining himself) if he hasn't made it right with the brethren he has offended? That is why closed communion is necessary and scriptural. Thanks, you just proved our point. We could not have said it better ourselves.

Bartimaeus

 

Did Judas examine himself? Is that why Jesus allowed him to partake?

People have turned the "examine yourselves" thing into something totally bogus. In the context of Corinthians, it has nothing whatsoever to do with unconfessed sin, something unresolved with your brother, etc. It's all about being aware that the Lord's supper is not the time to get drunk, eat up all the food before everyone arrives, etc. People are to examine themselves to see if they are partaking with respect, discerning the Lord's body. It's not a pot luck. It's the Lord's supper. So it deserves a whole different level of respect.

The hilarious thing about this whole issue is that churches have turned communion into such a robotic ritual that nobody HAS to examine themselves, anymore! Nobody is drunk. Nobody is eating anything ahead of anyone else.

In fact, everyone lifts the cracker to their mouths at exactly the same time, like synchronized swimming. Just imagine the last supper. Do you think the disciples looked at each other and said, "Okay, everyone, lift the bread to your mouth on 3. 1... 2... 3..." It's appalling how people have turned the Lord's supper into a pharisaic set of rules that don't reflect at all the way it was initiated.

If people aren't discerning the Lord's body these days, it's for the opposite reason compared to the Corinthians. People are probably so paranoid that their kids might eat the cracker 30 seconds before anyone else does that they forget the whole reason they're partaking in the first place.
.

 

Tom Butler...

It was asked if I would take communion from a Seventh Day Adventist minister, Benny Hinn, or a Catholic Church priest, and I responded "no" regarding the Catholic priest, and you asked why.


Because I consider the Catholic Church to be a false church overflowing with idolatry, heresy and blasphemy, and it proclaims a false gospel. And I believe their belief regarding the Lords Supper memorial is blasphemous.

The others who were listed...Seventh Day Adventists and Benny Hinn (charismatic pentacostalism)...are situations where I do consider them to be christians. I dont see eye to eye with them on everything, but I dont consider them to be counterfiet as I do the Catholic Church.

God bless,

Mike

 

edit.......duplicate post

 

Mike, thanks for your answer. I thought that was it,but wanted to be sure.

 

Good answer, couldn't have said it better.

 

Last 3 posts...

Berea, Ky
Paducah, Ky
Lone Ok, Ky

Are we the Kentucky delegation here? :wavey:

By the way, where is Lone Oak? Never heard of it, and that doesnt happen often for this life long Kentuckian.

Mike

 

Well, I just did a quick search :type: using google maps. Lone Oak is just a stones throw from Paducah.

You two are neighbors. Did you guys know that?

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

Yes, I have known Tom for a little over 30 years, and really well for the last 20 or so. We serve in the same church as deacons, and have had some interesting discussions about theology. The subject of this thread is one of the main ones.

Brother Tom never backs down from a about Scripture, yet in all the time I have served with him, I have never heard or experienced anything but kind and respectful words.

The Lord has truly blessed Tom having me as a fellow deacon.

 

.................

 

He said it as a joke, but believe me, it's true.