"Closed" Communion

I FIRMLY believe in "closed communion". But not to a particular denomination. But it should be only for truly "born again" believers, and not just to anyone who happens to enter a church on a particular day. Only truly born again believers would take the Lord's Supper in a solemn manner and UNDERSTAND it's sacred meaning.

I personally believe even a Christian should NOT even receive communion if they have GRIEVOUS SIN present in their life, such as immorality and wordily living. Paul the Apostle said to examine oneself BEFORE partaking. Can you say as you take the wine and the bread to Jesus, "Lord as YOUR SERVANT, I remember you this day for what you did for me and I receive your flesh and blood.Thank you Lord Jesus."

 

Have been reading some of the mail re: PB or as they are known here in the U.K. Strict Baptists.
We were able to attend a SB chapel when on holiday last year and loved it, loved the reverance of the worship and loved the preaching.
It was just beautiful. But I know that they do not allow any Christians, other than their own members to participate in the Lord's Supper. It does not matter even if they know they have been baptised in full immersion. Cannot believe this is right according to scripture.
Anymore comments please? from Rose

 

Rose

I agree with your feelings exactly. If an outsider is truly a "born again" believer they should never be denied communion. That is wrong, wrong,wrong.

 

As I note no one has picked up on my points, let me ask one more question: how many of you would want to vote in a business meeting where you are not a member, be offended if you could not? How many would want to have a "say," for example, in whether the local congregtion receives a new member? Are there not some things which obviously belong to (local) church membership? Any of you are welcome to eat at my house (please don't all come at once!), but the Lord has set some pretty high standards for His communion, and some folks at Corinth were ill, some even were
"asleep" for ignoring those. Remember - (local) church communion judges no one; all other forms must either judge or allow mockery. Best - Charles Blair - Ro. 8:28

 

Bro Blair

A business meeting for a local church is intended just for the members of that particular church, but the Lord's Supper is to be honored and received by ALL truly "born again" believers of our Lord. There are no restrictions except for those who are out of fellowship with the Lord and those unbelievers who do not solemnly honor the Lord's Supper in a reverent manner.

 

Mitsy, one can see you are an EMOTIONAL person. The example you give rests totally on Poor little Aunty sitting there being a good little Christian and feeling sorry for her. What about the scripture that says "No not to eat"?
Thanks -------Bart

 

If I come to you, declaring my position in Christ as a believer, but do not provide evidence of submission to Him in baptism and refuse to receive baptism at your hands through administration of your authority through the church and scripture, I can base this upon your theory of universal baptism into the church, therefore denying that your manmade doctrine of immersion is ever really necessary since I am baptized mysteriously into that great universal body of believers, am I in fellowship?

If not, how can you deny me, I have confessed with my mouth, my presence and attendance of the things of God are evidenced by my continual support and love for the church, I just simply refuse to receive your baptism, after all, only John was authorized by God to baptize, baptism is not needed in order for eternal life, I have been baptized by the Spirit into a much greater and wider body of believers than this one local visible body can even imagine or number, how can you declare me out of fellowship?

Let all things be done decently and in order is also a Biblical command.

God Bless
Bro. Dallas

 

Bro Dallas

If a truly born again believer was baptized in a SB church, Freewill church, Independent church or Regular Baptist church they ALL were baptized by immersion under the trinitarian formula.

So if they would fellowship with a Primitive Baptist church when communion is offered, by WHAT CRITERIA can you deny them the Lord's Supper. Since they trust in the same Lord you do and received the SAME BAPTISM as well?

As for taking someone's word for it, that they were indeed born again and scripturally baptized, why shouldn't you? If they are lying then their sin is not yours, but is between them and God. I believe a person is innocent until proven otherwise. But I would say to ALL in attendance of the Lord's Supper to examine yourselves and IF there is serious sin in your life, that you have not confessed to God, DO NOT receive communion.

 

Ok, I disagree with you. but, can you respond to the question regarding the spirit baptism into the supposed universal invisible church, this person would not be denying your baptism only, but also authority to baptize from anyone, right?

Bro Dallas

 

Ronald - Thanks for the response. On what basis do you say that a business meeting is only for the members of that one church? Isn't that restrictive and judgmental? After all, other true Christians have been properly baptized; shouldn't they be given the right to help you receive members into your congregation, approve candidates for baptism, etc? I have never felt excluded from Christian fellowship when I do not partake of communion where I am not a member; but I must admit when I am in another congregation and someone comes forward having received Christ as Savior I feel like voting to receive them! If my feelings are to be the criterion for me, and yours for you, we are back in the days of the judges when every one did what was right in his own eyes. There is another restriction besides salvation (and proper baptism) and a moral life, as stated in I Cor. 11 - no divisions. Those who hold baptismal regeneration but have been immersed usually want to commune every Sunday; if they were in your congregation, what would you say? Those who were sprinkled in infancy "feel" that they have the right to commune; how can we judge them? Lots of openly lost "church members" of various groups "feel" hurt if you refuse them while accepting someone else. Local church communion avoids judging anyone; those who have been received into the fellowship of that one congregation are to judge ourselves. If there is obvious immorality, the church needs to exercise discipline (though I admit we are weak there). As an interim pastor, I have often administered communion in a congregation where I was preaching (by their vote) without partaking, as I was not under their discipline. As I have explained that conviction, many have told me they understood for the first time our "old Baptist" approach. If we start to open communion beyond our own members, we immediately begin judging, or else allow clear mockery of the seriousness of this memorial. In Israel, the Passover was eaten by households. Joseph didn't stop at Michael's house and say
"Well, we're all Israelites together, so I'll just eat with you folks this time."

While I would never physically restrain anyone who chooses to partake in an orderly fashion, it may be that (in addition to presenting our views) the church may need to "disinvite" some folks. Spurgeon had a ticket system, and non-members (even if properly baptized) had to have a good reason to commune once. If they tried to come back often, they were turned away. It is my deep understanding that a local congregation is a body belonging to Christ, our Head, with the Holy Spirit as the heart and blood stream pumping life through the body. A failure to recognize the body may lead to illness or premature death (I Cor. 11). Best - Charles - Ro. 8:28

 

A business meeting in a local church should only be for the members, because they are the ones who financially support the church.

As for determining who should be allowed "open communion" no asking of individuals is necessary. For all are to answer to God alone in this matter.

A minister or Elder should tell the congregation that "this gathering for the Lord's Supper is for all those who are truly believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and have turned from their sins in obedience to him. Also if there is any among you that has serious unconfessed sin on your soul you should not partake in this solemn occasion until you have confessed your sins to God first. Examine yourselves before the Lord."

 

It seems to me we need to remember that there is a vast difference between participating in a business meeting and participating in the Lord's Supper.

First, the local church is both a biblical and a legal entity. Business meetings are just that, BUSINESS meetings. Local churches are also legal non profit membership organizations. As such the business affairs of that church, including the admission of its members has to legally reflect that. It is not just a biblical matter, it is a matter of law. Unless man's law conflicts with Biblical mandates, we are to be sure to honor that law. The Bible is silent about how to conduct business meetings. Surely, the conduct of them, like church polity, is a matter of adiaphora. Therefore, without a clear word one way or the other on who may participate in the business affairs of a local church from Scripture, we are left to man's law. Man's law does, in fact, restrict the business affairs of membership non profit organizations to the actual members of those organizations. For that reason alone, non members of local churches should not be allowed to participate in such meetings. Likewise, if they are members of sister churches and, say, there is a matter of church discipline, like the dismissal of pastor for immorality, those persons should not really, in my opinion, be privy. It's simply not their business.

Now, where does it say in Scripture that a person that knows the Lord should be refused the Lord's Supper? The assumption we make is that all Christians are baptized. That's it. While I certainly agree in believers baptism by immersion, it is important to remember that Presbyterians sometimes practice believers baptism, particularly the PCA churches. Methodists usually do not, but some do.
Some churches are Arminian, some are Reformed, some are a combination.

How far are those that advocate closed communion willing to go? Are the Reformed folks willing to deny communion to those of Arminian views but who have been through believers' baptism and vice versa? Would those same persons, if they visited a Presbyterian, PCA church on the day communion is offered refuse communion because of their differing views on believers' baptism, church polity, and the nature of the Lord's Supper (it is slightly different than the tradition Baptist view)? After all, the idea behind closed communion says we should exclude persons who are not of churches of like faith as well as order.
That seems very silly, not to mention unScriptural. As long as a person knows Christ, they should be allowed to participate in the breaking of bread. The mode of their baptism isn't really any of our business. Really, when you think about it, given the way we conduct our worship services, we have no means for determining who in our communion services is of like faith and order, much less who is or is not a Christian. We don't do surveys before we pass the elements, do we?

We fellowship with these other viewpoints otherwise within evangelicalism / fundamentalism, and we even accept that some neo-orthodox persons are Christians, though we strongly repudiate their epistemology. There is no valid reason to deny them communion if they know the Lord that I can find in Scripture.

I would point out that when the 2000 BFM came to the floor of the SBC for debate, the Convention spent so much of its time on the debate over the statement on the Bible that there was no time to debate any other points of it. I heard the entire debate. One brave man was allowed to speak after that debate was closed. He tried to speak to the concern that the new BFM included the idea of closed communion. He was cut off from discussion because the entire time for debating the BFM had been exhausted, and the issue was never revisited. This should NEVER have happened.

 

Bro.l Bridges -In point of fact, the SBC at Orlando voted overwhelmingly AGAINST the brother's motion and in favor of some degree of
"closed" communion. Since SBC churches are (still) autonomous, none actually have to conform even then, but there were almost no votes in favor of the (brave) brother who spoke in favor of wide-open communion.

As to Biblical basis for business meetings - Acts 1, where they voted on a successor to Judas; Acts 6, where "the saying pleased the whole church" and they acted on the suggestion of the apostles to seek out men to minister (Gr. verb, "deacon", not a noun - ministry, not office).

As to communion: remember I Cor. 11 - no divisions
among those present. When some have one doctrine and some another, what is that? When some have one "baptism" and some another, what is that? If we allow one, exclude another, we are certainly judging; if we recognize the local body as our long-held covenant states, "one body in Christ" (clearly referring to the congregation), then each member is to self-judge that we be not judged. Of course this also implies discipline, which is contrary to "feeling" but required by Scripture. We take our choice: our views as dictated by emotions, opinions, what we've been taught, denominational statements, etc; or what we see (or at least believe we see) in Scripture.
Admittedly, we may be wrong; but it it better to take clear statements of Scripture than "I feel."
I Cor. 5 - no openly immoral person; I Cor. 10 - no openly lost person; I Cor. 11 - no divisions. And that is "when ye come together in the church" (twice repeated), clearly a congregational matter just as the Acts 1 & 6 business meetings were. I had a brother-in-law who was pastor of a group that refused to have a church roll. He was a good and I believe saved brother in Christ, but I teased him that since there were more Baptists in the family than the folks who came to his work, I was going to come to business meeting and get him voted out and me in as pastor. His immediate reply - "You can't do that!" And I asked, "What is to stop me beside my own ethics? You have no roll, claim to be just a part of the universal church; you want me to commune with you; why can't I vote in your business meeting?" Legally, he had little answer, though of course no decent person would ever try that. But there are some who come in and take over by similar means!

The bottom line is that, while we must all come to Scripture for ourselves, local church communion isn't designed to be bigoted or judgmental, just an attempt to "keep the ordinanaces as they were delivered" (see I Cor. 11:2). I know some translations say "traditions" but many commentators have included baptism and communion in that package, and the Greek allows it without doing violence to text. Remember how serious all this is; some were ill, and some died for their loose views, failing to discern the body. If a local church is a body belonging to Christ, then we should see both His finished work of Calvary and His continuing congregational work as we commune with Him (not really with one another anyhow). Believe as you will, but let's do our best on a "Baptist Board" to use more Scripture and less opinion. Best - Charles - Ro. 8:28