Lord's Supper in private?

I would not consider believers assembled for the Lord's Supper a "coffee klatch," as I have already pointed out.

If you wanted to get technical, it would be done in the river or some other natural body of water. I was baptized in the bapistry at a Missionary Baptist church. As long as it is water and by immersion, it would be honoring.

What if there are no believers in general? Is it still a church?

Individual believers DO make up what is called the church and how they are to function AS a church is expressed in the Bible. It is not restricted to churches who have institutionalized themselves.

The local church is composed of who? Believers. Where? In any given locality.

 

I would not consider believers assembled for the Lord's Supper a "coffee klatch," as I have already pointed out.

If you wanted to get technical, it would be done in the river or some other natural body of water. I was baptized in the bapistry at a Missionary Baptist church. As long as it is water and by immersion, it would be honoring.

What if there are no believers in general? Is it still a church?

Individual believers DO make up what is called the church and how they are to function AS a church is expressed in the Bible. It is not restricted to churches who have institutionalized themselves.

The local church is composed of who? Believers. Where? In any given locality. </font>[/QUOTE]Way to go

Also with regards to the baptisim is it only for the Pastor to do or can any one do this...is it only in the water tanks at a building which we call church or can it be in a river, bathtub, swimming pool, hottub, etc....

In my opinion, in Matthew chapter 28:19-20

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

This scripture has been pointed out to me that only pastors are allowed to do this...My pastor is an IFB and his wife has told me that the pastor is the only one who is allowed to baptize...I quoted this scripture to her and she could not answer me when I asked her where do it say that pastors are the only ones who can perform this? Now I ask any one else the same question...even regarding communion...it is the same thing if a group of believers got together to have communion there is nothing wrong with it because they all know that they are believers and what brings believers closer to God by sharing the same beliefs that others have of the same.
There is so much division in the church and not enough unity...we are to be in one accord...think about it.

 

Who else would observe the Lord's Supper other than a local church (an assembling of born again people)? Believers gathered in a locality (could be a in house, in a rented storefront, an UPPER ROOM, etc.) for purposes expressed in the Bible are a local church. You cannot prove otherwise but by man's tradition.

Talk about wanting evidence! Where is THAT in the Bible? Teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

It only shows the shallowness of those on the opposing end.

 

I have been away for a few days. This debate is quite interesting. I note that as of this posting no one who favors taking private communion has addressed the last paragraph of my last post. So I'll repost the question again below:

The biblical principle is that Communion, the Lord's Supper" always takes place within the context of the local assembled body of believers (the local church). We never find individuals or individual sub-groups (of the assembled local church) taking Communion in isolation or in private.

Those who are indicating that all believers are in fact a part of the body are correct in that individual believers are part of the body of Christ. However, my wife and I and our kids, and my best friend, his wife, and their kids do not form the entire body of Christ known as Open Door Baptist Church in Raleigh, NC (where we are all members). I may be an eye, my wife may be an ear, our kids may be the hands, my friend may be the nose, his wife may be the other ear, and their kids may be the feet. We cannot say that we do not need the rest of the body. Paul wrote about this didn't he?

The arguments that Dr. Bob and I are using are based on the exegesis of Scripture. They are not based upon tradition as some have attempted to accuse. Anyway, would someone who maintains that any believer can take Communion whenever they feel like it please address my question quoted above?

 

The biblical principle is that Communion, the Lord's Supper" always takes place within the context of the local assembled body of believers (the local church). We never find individuals or individual sub-groups (of the assembled local church) taking Communion in isolation or in private.

Those who are indicating that all believers are in fact a part of the body are correct in that individual believers are part of the body of Christ. However, my wife and I and our kids, and my best friend, his wife, and their kids do not form the entire body of Christ known as Open Door Baptist Church in Raleigh, NC (where we are all members). I may be an eye, my wife may be an ear, our kids may be the hands, my friend may be the nose, his wife may be the other ear, and their kids may be the feet. We cannot say that we do not need the rest of the body. Paul wrote about this didn't he?

The arguments that Dr. Bob and I are using are based on the exegesis of Scripture. They are not based upon tradition as some have attempted to accuse. Anyway, would someone who maintains that any believer can take Communion whenever they feel like it please address my question quoted above? </font>[/QUOTE]After the final step in church discipline is taken the church has no authority over the person. But God still does. They are still God's child and God will discipline. If the person goes and takes it by himself in an unrepentant state, I believe the way Paul puts it, " many sleep". Also the same situation applys if the unrepentant person "runs" to a church that serves open communion. God will discipline him.

 

The biblical principle is that Communion, the Lord's Supper" always takes place within the context of the local assembled body of believers (the local church). We never find individuals or individual sub-groups (of the assembled local church) taking Communion in isolation or in private.

Those who are indicating that all believers are in fact a part of the body are correct in that individual believers are part of the body of Christ. However, my wife and I and our kids, and my best friend, his wife, and their kids do not form the entire body of Christ known as Open Door Baptist Church in Raleigh, NC (where we are all members). I may be an eye, my wife may be an ear, our kids may be the hands, my friend may be the nose, his wife may be the other ear, and their kids may be the feet. We cannot say that we do not need the rest of the body. Paul wrote about this didn't he?

The arguments that Dr. Bob and I are using are based on the exegesis of Scripture. They are not based upon tradition as some have attempted to accuse. Anyway, would someone who maintains that any believer can take Communion whenever they feel like it please address my question quoted above? </font>[/QUOTE]After the final step in church discipline is taken the church has no authority over the person. But God still does. They are still God's child and God will discipline. If the person goes and takes it by himself in an unrepentant state, I believe the way Paul puts it, " many sleep". Also the same situation applys if the unrepentant person "runs" to a church that serves open communion. God will discipline him. </font>[/QUOTE]Nope...

There is more to it than that. Why is it that church discipline is carried out before the assembled local body of believers at the time when they are about to have Communion?

You are correct that God will deal with an unrepentant believer who wrongly takes Communion by "running" to another church. However, if he "did it" at home in private he really did not take Communion. I don't know what he did, but it was not the ordinance of the Church that we call the Lord's Supper.

The Scripture always shows that the Lord's Supper was carried out within the context of the local assembled body of believers (where they met is not the issue); however, the point is that they were all together including their designated church leaders. The Scripture never shows us an occassion of an individual or even a sub-group of the local church observing the Lord's Supper in private. In this debate we are looking for biblical principles. The principle is clear that the Lord's Supper was always observed by the local assembled body of believers (the local church).

[ December 09, 2003, 04:00 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

Are the ordinances greater than the commandments? Even if you should say: But the ordinances are commandments. I'll let you say that, but there are more important, critical commandments. Yet still, these ordinances are ordinances. The commandments are not referred to as ordinances. There is a distinction to me.

Do I love my neighbor only when I am at church? Only under the sanction of the Presbytery? Is it the pastor that commands me? Of course not.

Do I need the clergy to tell me when and how to keep a commandment? Of course not.
Do I abstain from, resit and detest fornication, adultery and immorality only when I am at church? Only when the clergy sanctions or approves of it? Of course not. Yet if a man can do these things on his own, isn't it marvelous!

Is the closet where I frequently seek the Almighty God, only at my church? Is a pastor, deacon or elder authorizing or ordaining my closet? Yet my "closet" is where I am encouraged to come before the Throne of Grace. It is where I plead my many cases.

Am I free to call on his holy name, any time, anywhere, any place, on my own accord? Is this act not more important or at least equal to an ordinance of my religion?

If I ask for wisdom from God on any matter, must I first seek your approval?

These holy, God-breathed scriptures, am I only allowed to read and understand these while in church while under your careful guidance? Of course not.

This ordinance, Is it wrong for me to remember him and encourage others to remember him too? Why now is it an un-credible thing for me to want to remember his sacrifice for me? Even possibly more frequently than you all. But this is where there is a problem. And a very big one in your eyes. It is such an issue with some of you that you are willing to elude that I am "outside" of the faith. It seems that if I even suggest how an ordinance could be done, my work with the commandments is null and void. That doesn't make sense to me.

I will be honest, I have never baptized anyone. I have never administered the Lord's supper.

I love my neighbor everywhere I go. No man has to authorize me or sanction its private practice. Yet that is the 2nd greatest commandment and it is like the first greatest commandment. And all of the law and the prophets hang on that commandment. Why now is an ordinance in need of a governor?

If I can be trusted with the commandments, why now am I an imbecile, rebel, abuser or heathen with an ordinance? I have not spoken against the ordinances. I am only looking deeper. I have not discounted how you practice an ordinance. But I feel like I have been discounted, overridden and even accused because of my opinion regarding the observance of an ordinance that is common to our religion.

It just doesn't add up to me.

Dave.

 

I am not accusing you, discounting you or any of the other things that you have suggested above. All I am saying is that if you (or any one) attempts to observe the Lord's Supper in private you have not actually partaken in Communion. You will have eaten some bread and drunk some grape juice, you might even feel very spiritual, but you did not partake in Communion.

My argument is not based upon who officiates the Communion service or physically where it is done. My argument is based on the fact that the Bible teaches us that every time the Lord's Supper is mentioned it is within the context of the assembled local body of believers (the local church), and it is never in the context of an individual believer or an individual sub-group of believers apart from the rest of the local body of believers (in other words in private).

All of the other things that you mentioned, i.e. loving your neighbor, praying, reading your Bible, are thing that either Christ directly commanded every believer to do, or are implied in the text of Scripture. However, there are four things that the church is specifically to do (Acts 2:42). When the church first started we see, "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine [the preaching and teaching of the Word] and fellowship [the sharing of their lives and concerns together], and in breaking of bread [the Lord's Supper, or Communion], and in prayers" (Acts 2:42). Then, "And all that beleived were together, and had all things in common;" (Acts 2:44). As we continue to read this passage we see that yes, they did meet daily in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house (Acts 2:46). However, the context of the Scripture here indicates that it was all of those who believed doing these things together, not individually or in private.

 

I'm just tickled that you addressed me specifically (smile).

I agree. That of course begs the question: What makes one assembly of believers more qualified or more right than another? I hope you realize that I am not moved (intimidated) by mere numbers or size. It is quality that impresses me. I have seen groups of three or four that are a walking and talking disaster.

The term "sub-group" of believers. That is what makes me nervous. The sense that they are cut off from the head. The head being Christ himself. How can that be? Are they not technically a local assembly of believers?

If I can do all of those things on my own, then I should be able to find a church that always meets just for the Lord's supper. One of my friends may ask me: Why did you go to church this week? Looking surprised of course, I might say: Um... to observe the Lord's supper, why else?(smile). I'm being a little sarcastic and free with my speech. I ask for some grace.

All of these things can be done by two believers who are devoted to each other. Who never give up on each other. Who seek each others best interests. Whose lives are centered on those things you mention above. Let's multiply this group of two by 20 and now we have 40 folks doing that. Now it could be time to buy a modest building. But it is not necessarily time to have a pastor or deacons. It may not be necessary with just 40 believers who assemble regularly. Elders yes, elders will always exist. They seem to be a natural occurrence. I sense elders in the faith even here. I can spot an elder in the faith from a mile away. I actually consider Dr. Bob an elder in the faith. That is mostly because he engages me easily. He doesn't have authority in my life but I give him honor. He is an elder to me. He has earned it and I listen carefully to him.

My thoughts in this reply are a little haphazard, because I have to get ready to go to work. I ask for grace.

Thanks for just letting me speak.

Dave.

 

Of course I'm going to agree with tinytim and David Mark on their excellent posts.

Now let me address something which keeps coming up--that we must follow the scriptures literally in every instance and must practice exactly what is practiced in scripture and not practice something if it is not expressly practiced in scripture. Following that principle, how many of you who oppose taking communion in private, or in private homes, are pacifists? The New Testament and Jesus's example require that you be pacifists. Now, don't give me the example of Jesus's clearing of the temple; he didn't take anyone's life when He did that. Further, and similarly, Jesus's ethics would require that Christians oppose the death penalty.

Well, I can't wait to see the forthcoming rationalizations against pacifism and the death penalty. But I say you can't have it both ways and be consistent.

 

What in the world do either of those issues have to do with the current discussion? I've read with interest all of the far-fetched arguments, but no one has yet answered the clear Scriptural principles pointed out by Dr. Bob and Bible-boy. Jesus never taught pacifism, nor did He oppose the death penalty in any recorded Scripture. In fact, in Luke 22, He told His disciples to get swords (used for self-defense). God instituted the death penalty - take that one up with Him.

 

How does one feel about having only church members having communion?

It has been asked to be done at my church...where does that leave the non-members? They would never have communion. Then what do they do?

 

Ok first Grace: Dr. Bob is a very smart man and you should not say rude things or exclude him. (Sorry Dr.Bob I did that once but I commented you while doing it lol)He is a very good man and you should actually take his advice instead of excluding him.

 

Greg,

If you can't see what it has to do with the discussion, then I don't know what else to say. Don't you get the point?

Also, if Jesus wasn't a pacifist, why did He heal that ear that was chopped off? Why didn't He say "Well done" and chop off the other one?

Are you saying the Old Testament code of ethics takes priority over the example of Jesus? How many adulterers have you stoned lately?

If you practice only what is expressly practiced in the New Testament and exactly the same way, what's keeping you from joining the Church of Christ?

I say, either be consistent or be quiet.

 

The NT church functioned as a body of called-out believers. While there is no limit on the size of a church, a couple of Baptist friends meeting at their table do not constitute a called-out assembly. Every specific reference from the NT argues for the local church as the place for the practice of the ordinaces. I'm with Dr. Bob and Bible-Boy on this one. You do not need clergy, but you do need the authority of the body.

 

The statement that Jesus was a pacifist is an unprovable assertion. He fulfilled the law which clearly taught capital punishment for capital crime. Just because he healed the servant's ear does not prove him a pacifist. The NT clearly enforces the pre-law teaching of capital punishment and the use of warfare under the auspices of human government...Romans 13...which is in keeping with the teaching of Jesus Christ.

But then what connection does that have with the authority of the Lord's Supper. That is simply a confusion of man's kingdom (human govenment) and the spiritual realm (the local church).

 

Dr. Bob, I certainly don't want to divert y'all from a fruitless discussion on the Lord's supper, but I guess I'm the only backwoodsman here who doesn't know what a coffee klatch is??

I say fruitless because each side has such different ideas of what constitutes a church, and concerning the value of New Testament practice, that those issues need to be discussed first before entering into the discussion of the Lord's supper.

Michael, even if your assertions about pacifism and the death penalty were granted as correct, this would only prove that the positions are inconsistent - not that they are wrong about the Lord's supper. Arguments of consistency/inconsistency prove only that - that one is inconsistent - not which particular part of the inconsistency may be right or wrong.

 

As I drove into work this morning, I had this topic on my mind. I reflected on what I perceived it was that the Lord was asking when he met at the table with his friends.

He asked his friends: Remember me.

I felt that as I drove in. It was a somber and personal thing.

What a wonderful salvation!

Dave