Lord's Supper guarded least in the church

Oh, I quite agree that believers are in view here. And that only reinforces the principle that the congregation "guard the ordinances" (as commanded specifically by Paul in I Cor 11:2).

 

Yes, but Paul is totally silent about who else can and should eat the Supper.

 

Hello Brother Matt,

I'm new on this board and this is my first post. I understand both sides of the open/closed Lord's Supper and I have to say both sides have.

I am opposed to auditions for choir, but I see the issue differently than you do. I see the choir as being a ministry and participation in the Lord's Supper as an act of worship, so I don't see any disparity between having a "closed" choir and an "open" communion.

Scott
I note that our Lord served Judas the Lord's Supper knowing that very night he would betray him and also served Peter knowing he would deny him.

I also notice that in both Christ's and Paul's instruction on recieving the Lord's Supper, the emphasis is on examining yourself and not others.

In all events, I feel the issue of whom to allow to join in the Lord's Supper is a matter not clearly defined in Scripture and is to be settled by each autonomous church.

I appreciate you for bringing up this thought provoking issue.

 

Matt, you are correct. Two different events occurred that night. First, the passover (which involved the sop), then the Lord's Supper. After Jesus gave Judas the sop, he told him to go do what he was going to do. Judas left. The Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper.

John 13:30

 

I believe the Lord's table should be a closed. Church members only of that Church and in good standing. Jesus set this example in the upper room and there are many scriptures that speak of doing things decently and in order. 1st saved, 2nd baptized, 3rd fellowship, ect. If a visitor comes to your Church believing something different, like the host saves you or something, then when does it fall on the Church or Pastor to make sure the ordinances of the bible are followed?