Closed communion - as doctrine

Strictly speaking, closed communion isn't biblically wrong, but it isn't consistent with the custom of communion in scripture either.

That said, most of how we celebrate communion today isn't consistent with how it was done in scripture of in the first century. Communion was done with real wine and loaves of unleavened bread, not crackers and grape juice. It was usually done as part of a meal, not as a portion of a church service or liturgy.

In short, this us a classic example of scriptural liberty. Each church/congregation/fellowship has the duty to decide for itself what customs and practices it wants to observe regarding communion.

You're a Baptist. Do you have reason to believe church autonomy isn't biblical?

I assume you're referring to the passage in 1Cor which adminoshes people from taking communion "unworthily". You're grossly misapplying the passage. The passage is referring to those who would use communion to engorge themselves off the bread and get drunk off the wine, and in turn not leave enough for those others wishing to receive communion. The passage is not an admonition of not taking communion if you're sinning (otherwise, no one would be able to take communion).

 

"Let a man examine himself" coupled with priesthood of the believer leads me to view open communion as the best way.

 

(double post)

 

Closed communion has no real scriptural basis for making it a doctrine and is therefore a local church matter based more in tradition than scripture.

Unless someone is involved in a public and outright defiant sin that is bringing disrupute on the the church and that person has been publically admonished and removed from fellowship then I could understand not allowing him or her communion. Any other case is a personal matter between that person and the Lord. It's not the church that is partaking of judgment on herself but the person who is partaking in an unworthy manner.

 

Wouldn't a muslim visiting your church "examine" himself to be worthy? Isn't a muslim worthy in his own eyes? So, with what you are saying, you would open your communion to a muslim?

 

In most churches that practice open communion, they extend the invitation to believing Christians to partake of communion. IMO, that's sufficient. I don't believe an open communion church needs to go to the extent of prescreening those who partake. That should be between the communicant and the Lord. Erring on the side of grace is preferable to erring on the side of legalism. If a Muslim came to church, we should be overjoyed that he came to visit, rather than murmer among ourselves as to whether he should have taken communion.

 

Can't speak for RBell, but knowing him from his other posts, he wouldn't open it up for just anyone but only for people who have trusted Jesus as Savior.

But unless you're going to ask all non-members to leave before you take communion, AND serve it one person at a time, you will find some people taking it unworthily. Apparently the early church had the same problem because some of them had dies and were sick for violating the Scripture.

 

I always share with my congregation that communion is only for Christians (those who have turned from thier own way and have believed on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ). I also warn that participation is not something that one is to do lightly. To do so in an unworthy manner is to face the visitation of the judgment of God on one's life. In 1 Corinthians Paul mentions that some in the church had died because of their sinful stance while taking of the Lord's Supper. Others were sick as a result. It's not for me to make the final determination as to who is worthy or not worthy. I have clearly explained the Lord's Supper and have given an adequate warning thus leaving the responsibility on the head of the partaker.

 

Sag38, I'm sure you probably realize that the "unworthily" passage is referring to those who would use communion to engorge themselves off the bread and get drunk off the wine, and in turn not leave enough for those others wishing to receive communion. In giving an admonition and citing this verse, it's possible you might be misapplying the passage.

 

Jehovah Witnesses consider themselves Christian. Church of Christ consider themselves Christian.

 

So unless a church members grabs all the bread and drinks all the juice, he is not eating unworthily? :smilewinkgrin:

The passage is driectly applicable to any person who comes in an unworthy manner.

 

No, but when they perform the act of the Lord's supper in an irreverent manner then that is the context.

 

I'm not saying that. I'm simply saying that the context of the "unworthily" passage referrs to irreverent behaviour such as gluttony and drunkenness.

 

That is the context, but the application is far more broad, so he is not misapplying the passage.

 

The application referrs to direct irreverence as exemplified in gluutony and drunkenness. It doesn't refer to whether someone has sinned, or if someone doesn't subscribe to a preestablished list of doctrines, etc. That said, it's not necessarily wrong for a church to exclude such from communion, but the verse in question is not a prooftext for doing so.

 

John I believe that the application goes far beyond simply stuffing one's face and getting drunk while the poor sit on side hungry and sober.

 

I'm curious as to what text in that passage makes you think so, and what that applies to.

 

All true believers in Christ should be able to have fellowship, and therefore communion, together. If I visit a church that is having communion, I will partake if they let me. Some churches will not allow anyone outside their group to join them in communion, which I think is wrong. Some churches will allow anyone who professes to know Christ to partake. That decision is between them and God, and God will judge their worthiness.

The Bible simply says that anyone partaking unworthily will be condemned. Unworthiness can mean that the person is not saved or is out of God's will in his life even though he is saved. Only one time have I not partaken when the bread and juice were passed, because there was sin in my life that I had not resolved. I felt unworthy (actually, I always do) to partake at that time.

 

The practice of closed, close or open communion involves more than just arriving at a viewpoint based on a couple of scriptures. It involves some pre-suppositions, as well. If you believe A, then you must believe B If you believe B you cannot believe C.

First, one must define what a church is. Most people believe in a Universal Church, composed of all believers everywhere. Those same people will also recognize the existence of local congregations.

Still others hold that the scriptures know only one kind of body--the local church; that the Universal Church does not exist, and if it does, it is dysfunctional.

The first group will generally define the Lord's Supper as a Christian ordinance; the second generally as a church ordinance--a local church ordinance.

If you are in the first group, the U-churchers, then open communion is a natural result. All believers are in the Church, all are Christians, thus communion is open to all Christians. It is highly unlikely that a U-Churcher would be a closed communionist.

If you are in the second group, the L-churchers, then you must believe that the ordinances are local church ordinances, to be administered by local churches to local churches. Some may sanction "close" communion (say, to others of like faith and practice), but in some way the table is restricted.

So, isolating Communion for debate and discussion without examining the larger body of doctrine and practice will not produce much fruit. We'll just be talking past each other.