Closed or Open Communion?

Which do you support? Why?

Churches that practice “open” communion invite all professed believers in Christ to join them in observing the ordinance. Churches that practice “closed” communion limit involvement in the Lord’s Supper to their own local body/denomination—only official members in good standing are allowed to partake.

 

Open, with the stipulation that one has been immersed in believers immersion (Romans 6:3-4; 1 Corinthians 11:28).

 

So you believe that one must be Baptised before partaking Communion? So is this not actually closed, if you are preventing people from partaking?

 

Can you explain further? How is Close different from closed?

 

One can view it as closed. Some baptist think of that as what is meant by closed communion. But it is open to other believers who are not members of that local church. From the stand point that baptized believers who are not members of that local church are invited to partake in the communion service it is open.

 

okay I see. I use closed and open in the same sense as restricted and unrestricted.

 

When I pastored we did "close" also. But, we could not and would not investigate that everyone taking the Lord's Supper was truly "close". I talked about the individual's responsibility to be sure they are saved, baptized by immersion as a symbol that they were saved. But I refused to question someone.

 

I have always found it most ironic that we can deny the communion table to those whom Jesus has already redeemed and accept them at His own table!
The real question to me would be is water baptized required or not, if Baptist partaking?

 

I think it matters on the church. Some do and some don't. Those who say that baptism by immersion is required say it because it is the 1st step of obedience in announcing that you are a believer. If you haven't taken that 1st step, then you are not in obedience, therefore you shouldn't participate in the Lord's Supper. I think that's the way the reasoning goes.

We used the phrase, "Like faith and practice" meaning they may not have Baptist in the name but their doctrine is baptistic.

I may not be relating the position correctly.

 

There is a lot of baggage surrounding the Lord's Supper, especially the use of terms that may mean different things to different people. Most Baptist versions of the Lord's Supper are "open" to some and "closed" to others. The issue is not whether the participation is restricted, but to what extent.

 

The not discerning the Lord's body was the unworthy fellowshipping (1 Corinthians 11:27; 1 Corinthians 10:17). How some of the Corinthians were doing this was using the observance as a meal (1 Corinthians 11:21-23).

 

I think it should be a matter of soul liberty and self examination.
". . . But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. . . ." -- 1 Corinthians 11:28.

 

Often in the person wanting be baptised has to wait multiple weeks to be baptised, even though they have been accepted to be so by the minister because of time to organise the baptism. During this period the communion is observed. Is this person allowed to take communion or must they wait even though they have put their faith in Christ?

 

I would not block anyone in that condition that you posted here, but what about say someone who believes in Jesus, evidence of really saved, but was just infant baptized so far?

 

Agreed that someone really saved shoull want and go thru in believers Baptism!