Open Or Closed Communion

Open or closed..

Hey wait a minute, I know I am only in the Blue grass state by 40 yards but it still counts.

20 miles south and east of Scottsville and 40 yards from the Tn line.

Bartimaeus

 

Absolutly!

Everyone in the Kentucky delegation, lets hear it for brother Bartimaeus!

40 yards from the Tennessee line. (living on the edge of darkness!...)

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:


Mike

 

Don't leave Belfry, Kentucky out of this!!!

 

From what I see here, it is even worse than that. Some advocate using it as a club to enforce church discipline, something that can be found nowhere in scripture. It is important for Christian people not to make up doctrine out of what just seems right to them. There is a way that seems right to a man, after all, that leads to destruction. Weilding communion as a weapon is just plain wrong.

I hear a lot of people saying this is right or that is right, but I don't see much from scripture to back up all these things. Jesus said "do this in rememberance of me". That is all. He didn't give a list of rules or hurdles to be cleared or anything else. Paul did gave a rule for a man to examine himself. Judas was dead by then, by the way.

I find it little wonder that so many churches find themselves empty these days when they are so quick to exclude fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, members of the body of Christ, from communion so that the don't defile themselves by partake with someone stained with some wrong. Yet there are wolves even among us. We cannot always even recognize them in our own midst. But that is between them and God unless I know differently. Sin sniffing is taking what Paul taught to an unbiblical extreme.

 

That is certainly not a biblical definition of repentance.

 

Forget closing communion... Close all exits out of Kentucky!!!

 

I can swim the river Tim;

 

phooey! I forgot that!

 

Why, we would never leave out the fine town of Belfry, Ky!

Lets hear it for BELFRY!!!....

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:


Mike

 

Are you saying that no church should place any restrictions on who shall sit at the Lord's table?

In I Cor 5:11, Paul tells the congregation Corinth not to eat with some kinds of folks. That is, do not fellowship with them. By extension, I think he includes the Lord's Supper. In v 12 he asked, "don't you judge those who are within?", that is in the congregation.

I believe that the problem is not that too many churches use church discipline as a club. The problem is that too many don't do church discipline at all.

It's not a question of a desire not to defile ourselves by observing the Lord's Supper with someone stained with some wrong. We are all sinners. It is a desire to protect the integrity of the ordinances. The best way to do that is to restrict communion to members of the local congregation.

To do otherwise is a dangerous thing. A congregation which opens the Lord's Table to all may very well be assisting someone in participating in an unworthy manner. And we know what happened to some Corinth church members who Paul warned were "drinking damnation," some were sick and some were dead.

 

A couple of other points, please.

Paul, in I Cor 10:21 makes it plain: "Ye cannot drink of 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."

Ah, you say, we're not talking about devils,we're talking about communion with fellow Christians.

Either way, open communionists must judge everyone's salvation (unless you permit the unsaved to participate). You must judge the salvation of strangers.
And you must make a blind, uninformed judgment on the devils as well.

So much for the argument that the decision to participate is up to the individual.

 

Huh? I don't follow your reasoning here at all. It's talking about how the Corinthians - presumably believers - can't have it both ways. They can't partake of both the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils. It's pretty much the same kind of message as "you can't serve God and mammon, too". This has nothing whatsoever to do with regulating communion.

 

I Cor 10:21 establishes the principle of a restricted Lord's table. There are some people you shouldn't share the Lord's table with.

I Cor 5 11 names some of them. V.11 comes on the heels of Paul's instruction regarding the church member who was having an affair--a fornicator.

The majority of us would restrict the table in some way, so we're discussing the degree of restriction. Even open communionists restrict the table to professing Christians, and most OC's would restrict it to baptized Christians.

My view, closed communion, is driven by my view of the nature of the church, which is a local congregation.

Other views are driven by their view that there also exists a Universal Church. I hold that no such entity exists. All views of communion spring from how one views the church.

Communion is also an expression of fellowship and unity. How can we have real unity by opening the Lord's table to those who may hold to baptismal regeneration? Or to a sacramental communion? Or to an unbiblical view of baptism? How can we know what strangers believe? Feigned unity belies the divisions among us, which Paul warned was dangerous, possibly fatal, to those who participate in the midst of such divisions.

 

Are there Batts there?

 

Just on Halloween....................

 

That is only one symptom of failing to discern the Lord's body. When one fails to discern the Lord's body in the bread and the cup, then he partakes unworthily and eats and drinks damnation to himself. Some of the Corinthians were stricken with death and sickness because they partook unworthily. The Lord's table is nothing to come to lightly or unadvisedly.

 

No, it doesn't. It establishes the fact that BELIEVERS can't have it both ways. You can't indulge in idolatry and then turn around and partake of the Lord's supper. To do so provokes the Lord to jealousy, and it's just plain wrong. This has nothing to do with restricting the Lord's table, or determining who can and cannot partake. It has to do with double-minded (or false) believers.

There's no doubt that communion is only FOR believers. But this passage says nothing about how it should be administered, or who determines who gets it and who doesn't.

 

Npet;
Is your avatar really you or do you have a mask on????

 

LOL - that's my favorite cartoon character. His name is Daggett Doofus Beaver, voice acting by the extremely talented Richard Horvitz. The show (Angry Beavers) was canceled years ago, and as far as I know there aren't any reruns currently aired.

Trust me. If you had to choose whether to look at Daggett or my picture, you'd pick Daggett. I could only hope to be that handsome.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Butler
I Cor 10:21 establishes the principle of a restricted Lord's table. There are some people you shouldn't share the Lord's table with.

The passage is as you say, but it also begs this question: Since idolatry is hard to hide, and probably known to the congregation, doesn't the congregation have an obligation to act on that knowledge? It seems to me that to take the position that "it's up to the individual, it's not our call" to deny the idolator a place at the Lord's table is an abdication of responsibility to protect the integrity of the ordinances.

Remember, this is the same congregation that Paul castigated in I Cor 5 because it permitted a man who was having an affair to remain in fellowship. To paraphrase Paul, he said, "I'm not even there, and I've passed judgment on this man, and on you. Get him out of there."

It is inconsistent to separate church discipline from the Lord's table.