1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Open, close, closed Communion?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Dr. Walter, May 1, 2010.

  1. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    No, Ben Stratton did not describe early Southern Baptists as "close" communionists--but "closed."

    Closed communion was the predominant Baptist view in America before the SBC was founded. The newly-organized SBC (1845) churches did not just sit down together and say, "let's see, we need to come up with a position on access to the Lord's table. Any suggestions?" It was already the established view among Baptists.

    In other words, closed communion was the orthodoxy, open communion was the aberration. These days, it seems to be the other way around.
     
  2. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    My mistake, I guess I was trying to read it without my glasses. I went back and read your quote again and sure enough the word "closed" not "close" was there in black and white.

     
  3. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    Welcome to the club, Dr. Arthur. I'm like you. I need my glasses only when I need to see.
     
  4. Jerome

    Jerome Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    9,788
    Likes Received:
    698
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I already offered my guess as to how your "pronouncement" about Judas could be reconciled with Scripture: fast onset leprosy.
     
  5. Jerome

    Jerome Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    9,788
    Likes Received:
    698
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Baptist Memorial and Monthly Chronicle, Nov. 1843
    [A correspondent reports from the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the North Carolina Baptist State Convention, held in Henderson County, October 1843]:
     
  6. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe in close communion but it's a whole lot easier to practice closed. Why? You know your own flock. It grieves me when I hear a visitor from another church has taken the Lord's table with us and you hear he's in open rebellion against God. But 1 Cor 11 seems to be directed at the church offering time for examination so the individual can partake rightly. So I go back to close, but I can understand the closed side. Open? Never.
     
  7. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    I certainly understand the "close" position and many Baptists in history practiced "close" communion. However, if the Bible is our final word of authority I simply do no understand how anything but "closed" communion can be scripturally practiced.

    1. The Lord's Supper is discussed in chapter 5, chapter 10 and chapter 11

    2. Chapter 5 demands examination of the church body administering it

    3. The church body administering it represents the "whole" lump which can be changed to a "new" lump by church discipline.

    4. Chapter five demands examination of the CONDIITION of the church body administering it.

    5. Chapter ten demands examination of the PRACTICE of the membership observing it.

    6. Chapter 11:17-20 teaches that a schismatic condition within the church administering it invalidates the Supper.

    7. Chapter 11:21-22 teaches that the inappropriate MANNER invalidates the Lord's Supper

    8. Chapter 11:27-31 teaches that improper individual CONDITION invalidates the Lord's Supper for those individuals.



     
  8. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    Preparation of Individual Houses

    Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel. - Ex. 12:15

    Ex 12:19 Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land.


    Ex 13:7 Unleavened bread shall be eaten seven days; and there shall no leavened bread be seen with thee, neither shall there be leaven seen with thee in all thy quarters.

    All the above texts required the removal of all leaven from their houses before they could keep the feast of passover. Traditionally, the father of each home would lead their family through their house with a candle seeking to purge all leaven from their home. When they found all the leaven they would remove it from the house and burn it.

    This is the background for Paul's statement to the Church at Corinth in 1 Corinthians 5:5-8.


    To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
    6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
    7 ¶ Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
    8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.


    In the book of First Corinthians, The apostle has identified two different kind of houses. The church at Corinth is identified by Paul as "God's building" and God's "temple" (I Cor. 3:9,16) as well as "the body of Christ" (1 Cor. 12:27). The body of the individual believer is also identified as God's house or "temple" (1 Cor. 6:19).

    Leaven is to be removed from the institutional house of God in chapter five before the church is prepared to "keep the feast."

    Leaven is to be removed from the individual house of God in chapter eleven before the individual believer is prepared to "keep the feast".

    Some do not believe that the Lord's Supper is in view in chapter five simply because they fail to see that Paul is intentionally using the preparation language in direct relationship to the church as the "house" of God in removal of the known sinner in their midst before they can observe the Lord's Supper.

    Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
    8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth......But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.


    Ask yourself the following questions. What feast are Christians commanded to keep "Let us keep the feast" where Christ is "our passover" and "is sacrificed for us"? What feast do Christians keep "with the unleavened bread"? What feast do Christians keep where they "eat" with other brethren?

    Paul is clearly taking the common Old Testament preparation for the Passover and applying it directly to the church as the "house" of God and telling them they are not prepared to keep the Christian version of the passover (Lord's Supper) until they have removed all KNOWN leaven from God's House - this is chapter five.

    Paul is clearly teaching that the "house" which stands in need of purging certain known leaven ("brother") is representative of the bread to be used in the passover "as ye are unleavened" and they represent "the whole lump." He is clearly teaching that when they remove this leaven they become a "new lump."

    Whatever kind of church "the whole" represents, it is limited to the observers within the membership of "the whole." If it represents a universal invisible church then the Lord's Supper is restricted to that membership. If it represents all churches of like faith and order then the Lord's Supper is limited to that membership. If it represents a local visible church then the Lord's Supper is restricted to that membership.

    Whatever kind of church is represented by "the whole" is the kind that can exercise discipline over "the whole" to remove a "brother" so that the membership becomes a "NEW lump." Since this is impossible for the universal invisible kind of church, then "the whole" cannot have reference to that kind. Since it is impossible for each observing church to administer discipline over the membership of all churches within a denomination, then the practice of "close" communion including all members within churches of like faith and order is no more scriptural than "close" church discipline or the administration of discipline by the observing church over the membership of other churches.

    This means that "the whole" refers to the local church administering both the discipline and the ordinance over its own membership. Remember, in Exodus the command applied to each house individually and separate from the other houses even though all were Jewish in kind.
     
    #48 Dr. Walter, May 4, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2010
  9. percho

    percho Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    7,304
    Likes Received:
    458
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Dr Walter ??

    As ye are unleavened. How did they become unleavened?
     
  10. dcorbett

    dcorbett Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    3,414
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist

    My IFB church has closed communion.
     
  11. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    Glad to hear it.

    Just curious, what do you say to visitors when it's time for the Lord's Supper?
     
  12. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    That is a very good and insightful question. I think Paul was simply revealing to them what they are by symbolism "ye are unleavened" but that symbolism can be misrepresented when public sin comes in among them as a body.

    The analogy probably has its roots in their public state of holiness as expressed in their profession in water baptism at the formation of the body. The words of Christ to the church in the upper room discourse are analogous:

    He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean

    They are "unleavened" in regard to their professed state as expressed in baptism but open and known sin perverts that analogy.



     
  13. Tom Bryant

    Tom Bryant Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,521
    Likes Received:
    43
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "GET OUT!" :tongue3:

    I was in a closed communion church and they asked that members only come forward to take communion. The elements were not served but were on the communion table in front of the congregation.

    I did wonder what would happen if I had come forward. But my wife wouldn't let me. :BangHead:
     
  14. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    That made me chuckle.:laugh:

    Let me ask you, Tom, were you offended, embarrassed or made uncomfortable because of the churches stance?

    I ask this because I think a brief explanation by the pastor might help. Visitors may not agree with it but would understand better where the church is coming from.

    I wonder how other closed-communion churches handle the visitor situation.
     
  15. Tom Bryant

    Tom Bryant Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,521
    Likes Received:
    43
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Tom,
    I wasn't offended but I had looked forward to being a partaker of the Lord's Supper rather than being the guy in front. I know this isn't a sacrament but it is always a spiritual event for me. So I wished I had been able to.

    The pastor did give more of an explanation of what was going on. And as a pastor, I understood his position. But I am not sure a believer from another Baptist church would have understood why he/she couldn't partake.
     
  16. John Toppass

    John Toppass Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,080
    Likes Received:
    8
    It would seem to me, that in a closed communion (church members only) it would seem that the reasoning of "you know your own" would be like passing judgment on others. I do like the close communion ( all believers who are immersion baptized) because I think that each individual is responsible for his/her own state of sin. Nobody can do anything to get someone else into Heaven. Just as we cannot judge the heart of another believer we do not know. And if we did, why would automatic judgment be negative? Is this the love that Jesus commands that we give to our neighbor? If proper instruction has been given then the choice should be left up to the individual.

    I know it is more than just this, but this is just my thoughts. I have no problem not participating in a closed communion at a church other than my own. It does seem a bit legalistic tho. I may be wrong, but it is just the way it seems to me. My feelings have never been hurt over this because I can understand why they do what they do. I do know of others who feeling have been hurt by closed communion.
     
    #56 John Toppass, May 5, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2010
  17. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    I understand your feelings about partaking. It is a sacred time for me as well.

    I don't know a single closed communion church which does it out of exclusivist or legalistic motivations. Frankly, it would be a lot easier on everybody if it was just opened up to all baptized believers.

    But since CC churches have arrived at that position because they believe it is demanded by scripture, they have no choice but to act upon their conviction. I certainly have no desire to see any visitor offended or have their feelings hurt, but I think anyone would desire to be faithful to scripture first and foremost.
     
  18. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    Brethren,

    I believe there other Biblical reasons for closed communion than just better awareness of who is partaking the supper.
    It is a "church" or "body" ordinance not a denominational ordinance. It is designed to represent not merely doctrinal unity but practical unity as one body in Christ.
    When we observe the Lord's Supper with visitors I explain it as follows:

    The wine represents the blood of Christ shed for all the elect. However, the bread demands more than mere salvation but it demands the sanctification of all the obsevers as scripturally baptized believers united together in one local church body. This is exactly how the Lord instituted and how it is observed in every clear example in scripture. We have no desire to offend any vistor and you are welcome to stay while we observe the Lord's Supper as one body in Christ.


     
  19. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just so I'm not misrepresented, look at my whole post.

    The primacy of the local church is...well, primary :) The church is given the authority to administer the Supper (of course, only quarterly since that's obviously Biblical :laugh:). But why close communion? Symbolism is perhaps the best argument. When we take the Lord's Supper, we identify with His shed blood and broken body (1 Cor 11:24-26). Only those who have truly received the gift of eternal life and after self-examination are worthy are eligible.

    Now, say such a chap is present in the midst but is not a member of that particular local church. To withhold LS from a cleansed believer in Christ is sin against the body and blood of Jesus. It deprives him of the proclamation (26) and remembrance (24-25).

    That said, I lean more to the closed communion for practical sake as I quoted before. That's the only way you know this person is not drinking or eating judgement on himself if he were under discipline from his own church. However, it's a dangerous thing to symbolically proclaim that only the elect of God are confined to a membership roll of one particular church at the table.

    I do believe Closed communion churches should explain what they're doing as an opportunity for the restoration of members and salvation of the lost. I completely respect that, and have no problem even if they say that I as a visitor should leave if that's their conviction. Of course, it begs the question whether they ask people to leave during the other ordinance. Of course, would to God that churches would practice discipline again in NT way.

    Just for the hooey of it: has anyone esposed open communion? I've yet to hear one single good evangelical argument from the Bible justifying this practice.
     
    #59 TomVols, May 5, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2010
  20. TomVols

    TomVols New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't see closed communion as judgemental. I understand it from a practical standpoint relative to discerning the corporate body. My major objection to it is the withholding the table from a legit believer. To be able to enter God's Kingdom in heaven but be shunned from the table within his earthly kingdom doesn't pass the smell test. But, I don't see it as anti-Scriptural.
     
Loading...