Featured Closed communion

What can I say? John Gill is wrong.

It may be creative, but no rationalization. For it to be a rationalization would mean I would prefer to practice local-church only communion over communion with like faith and order.

 

The church I attend now has open communion. In my previous church in which I served at we "fenced the table". We read Paul's admonition to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:23-32) and asked each person in attendance to examine their conscience before partaking. We would also give a short 1-2 minute exhortation about the Lord's Supper before administering the elements.

 

How? Please elaborate.

 

And if we go strictly by this in support of closed communion, women can not partake of it, either.

 

I'm not inclined to spend any length of time on this. I made the John Gill comment sort of in jest. Obviously if he is right, I am wrong -- so he must be wrong.

I did think it odd that he went to the Syrian and Arabic translations, rather than make the case in Greek. Further, I think the majority of times that breaking bread is mentioned in the New Testament it is a meal that is not the Lord's Supper. Where the broken bread is without question the Lord's Supper the cup is also mentioned.

 

That’s not what I meant, and maybe I misunderstood why you used the last supper. If I did, I apologize.

Those who practice closed communion use the last supper as support for their communion being closed. If that’s the case, if that’s their model, then women have be excluded, as no women were there with them.

I advocate a communion open to all believers who are in good standing with their church.

 

You just made his point. Jesus invited a select group. That instance is not a model for who should attend future communion services.

 

If it was a literal model then only men named Peter, Andrew, James, John, .... Could attend. You could only have it in an upper room. Only 12 plus the pastor. Etc. Etc.

 

If one subscribes to: "The Holy Catholic Church" of the Apostles Creed, one must believe in the universal church. This would be contrary to closed communion. Many of the so-called holy fathers were in serious error.

The term "local church" is misleading. It implies that there is some other kind-- i.e. universal.

There are three possibilities: universal-visible--Catholic; universal-invisible--Protestants; and local-some heretical bapistic groups. The correct answer is not all of the above.

Closed communion has become a test of fellowship in some baptistic circles.

In some places, anybody's immersion will qualify.

Beware the wolves in fleece.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

You are not understanding my point and it’s my apology for not getting it across clearly.

Around here, churches who practice closed communion use the last supper to support their communion being closed.

If that’s the model they’re using, and no women were there at the last supper, then they would have to not allow women to partake if they wish to remain true to that model, imo.

 

Closed communionists are not holding the Last Supper as a model to be replicated exactly. In the realm of the closed part of communion, most see it as indicating principle. If the last/first supper was a private observance restricted to those whom Jesus invited, there would be no reason to suppose the Lord's Supper in the church age cannot also be a private observance restricted to those whom Jesus invites. Maybe that helps explain how closed communionists see it supporting their position without trying to create an exact replica.

 

No, you are the one trying to make the Last Supper more literal than it was. That's on you, not me.