Open, close, closed Communion?

Sorry, the post below is the right one.

 

A couple of points, if I may.

1. The first Lord Supper was observed by only baptized people who had professed salvation. One might want to argue that John's baptism wasn't true Christian baptism like the baptisms in Acts. But it was good enough for the one who instituted the supper, the Lord himself.

2. The Acts accounts know nothing of unbaptized people taking communion. Acts 2 records the order: saved, baptized, later the "breaking of bread."

3. If scriptural baptism is a pre-reqiusite to communion, then those who have been sprinkled or poured cannot participate.

4. Even immersion as the scriptural mode is not sufficient. A Mormon-immersed person, or one whose immersion was intended for salvation, is not scripturally baptized.

5. And finally, the scriptural record shows that everyone who observed communion was a member of a local congregation.

Oops, that's more than a couple. Okay, ignore the last three.

 

Tom,
I guess, I should have stressed it seems judgmental and I knew that was not the intent. I do not see it as anti-scriptural either, but I am not aware of any scripture that gives us the exact method for communion except that Jesus did say to do this in remembrance of Him. The main thing is that I do not think the type of communion a church uses will make a difference in the salvation of an individual.

 

Dr Walter

Being this thread has slowed down I would like to ask a few questions.

Why did God give the children of Israel the passover and does it or should it have any application in any form to the church today?

Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world. Is this the passover lamb?

Why did God give the children of Israel the feast of unleavened bread and does it or should it have any application in the church today?

In the fourteenth [day] of the first month at even [is] the LORD'S passover.
Because of the blood of the lamb the angel passed over the children of Israel but the death of the firstborn of Egypt. So Pharaoh told them to leave and the night of the 15th they left Egypt (Sin). As they purged leaven (Sin) from their dwellings they were purged from sin (Egypt) That 15th day was a high
day. The day they came out of sin (Egypt).

And on the fifteenth day of the same month [is] the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD:

For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast. As ye are unleavened.

The death of Jesus purged us from out sins. As far as the east is from the west, [so] far hath he removed our transgressions from us. Ps 103:12

An old man and a young man were going up the mountain and the young man said behold the fire and wood but where the lamb and the old man said Son God will provide himself a lamb.

There is one question I have yet pondered over and that is why another high day on the 21st? Any suggestions would be welcomed.

 

Pastor asks the visitors to please be respectful as we observe one of the two ordinances of our faith, and if one wishes to know more, any of the members would be glad to explain the way they may know that they are going to Heaven when they die.

 

Do you think that people must join your church to go to heaven? I don't think you are saying that. But am just wanting to be clear.

No one here is talking about an open communion where anyone - saved or unsaved - can partake. I believe in close communion but i warn people who are unsaved they should not partake.

 

I'm wondering how churches handle a situation like this:

Let's say that someone shows up at your church, and you are aware that he has been disfellowedhipped from another church for (pick something). It could be something like flagrant sin, being divisive, non-attendance and non-support.

Would you permit him to participate in the Lord's Supper?

Yes, I know that each participant should examine himself, but what if he won't? Wouldn't the church be complicit in his sin to admit him to the Lord's table?

Does the congregation have no responsibility whatsoever to guard the ordinances and protect their integrity?

 

Interesting question. If you have closed communion, that problem would be solved. But, short of telling the server to refuse to serve them, I am not sure you can do much more than warn them without making a scene.

Trying to think my way thru that scenario.

 

I have always found it interesting that the church is the ultimate beneficiary of all these types which were given by the Word of God yet says they are not for us even though the Word of God is the head of the church. I think most think the church began on the feast of first fruits. As Colonel Klink would say veeeeery interesting.

 

Historical baptist writings

According to some Baptist history books, communion was not as strict in the earlier days of the first labeled baptist churches. The General Baptists were considered "close" communion and the Particulars were mainly closed but some varied with closed and open communion coinciding with their view on membership.

The Particulars (now called Regulars in the states) enveloped most, if not all, of the General Baptists here (General Baptists not really around until Benoni Stinson started up the name again). After the General Union of VA and KY, the United Baptists for the most part carried on closed communion, which followed into the Primitive Baptists as well as those churches/associations that joined up with the Southern Baptist Convention.

At least that's what I understand of the historical baptist writings.

 

The church of my childhood was a United Baptist church, and they practiced open communion.

 

RSR, howdy, nice to talk to you again.

I kindly like the way y'all think at your church, and the seriousness with which you approach TLS, tho it seems a bit involved, however, shouldn't you be "recognizing" churches of like faith & order, rather than, as you say,"an evangelical, Bible-believing congregation"?

What exactly is that anyway? Much too vague. If it is not the Lord's church (i.e., Baptist in belief, practice, lineage, etc.), nearly as you can tell -- I would certainly not want to invite them to join me.

 

Tom, was that church independent or part of an association? If I had to guess I would say Stockton Valley or a branch off of them, because of the area of TN. I need to brush up on my knowledge of the UBs in TN!

 

Sounds like close communion to me.

Independent.

 

Tho it is late, I have taken the time to faithfully read thru this entire thread. I wonder at the lack of different, or slightly different positions here (on BB) sometimes, it seems one or the other - without a modified position. Well...let me be the modifier, if I may!

I must divert attention now to Acts 20.

Act 20:6 And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days.
Act 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
Act 20:8 And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.
Act 20:9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.
Act 20:10 And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.
Act 20:11 When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.
Act 20:12 And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted.

Note Paul's presence here at the Church of Troas(?) for the purpose of "breaking bread." In verse 11, does it not say "he" (Paul) had "eaten"? We might also call this 'partaken of'.

Note also:

Act 20:4 And there accompanied him into Asia Sopater of Berea; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timotheus; and of Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus.
Act 20:5 These going before tarried for us at Troas.

Here is a listing of 7 other brothers present -- from various different churches. I think Silas may have still been with Paul here (from Jerusalem?), as well as Luke? Paul was clearly a member of the Church at Antioch. While the narrative does not specify it here, do we think that Paul only of this group of welcomed brothers "ate" at the breaking of bread?

In this thread it has been stated that there is no evidence of, or for, "Close" communion. Even if we say that there is only evidence of Paul partaking of this Lord's Supper - it is, nonetheless, evidence for "close" communion being practiced by both the primitive church and the Apostle Paul.

Remember too, that Paul had just 5 days prior to arriving at Troas, left the "days of unleavened bread" festival at Philippi. The concepts of, and seriousness about, the meanings and implications of unleavened bread (as Dr. Walter continually alludes to) would no doubt have still been fresh & heavy(?) on Paul's mind.

Also, let me clarify what I mean by & understand to be, the scriptural definition, or application, of "close" communion. It is: Breaking Bread with a brother from a church of like faith & order, period. It cannot be limited to mere baptism by immersion - as someone else pointed out here already; or any other lesser or 'minimum' standards, save fully like faith & order. Paul, and all his company, would have fully fit this bill. For communion, properly The Lord's Supper, to knowingly be offered to anyone not in the Lord's church, and therefore discipline, is outrageous.

Now, having said this, it has not been, now ever will be, the duty or place of Christ's ecclessia to strong-arm anyone into obedience of anything. The scriptural mandate, and example therefore of how to administer TLS, is to give a clear warning & explanation as to what it is about, who it is for, and to leave the rest to the individual. We would certainly not be in the position of wrestling someone whom we thought ought not take it. The warning says that "many sleep" for not heeding the warning -- it is on them -- not us. I liken it to the watchmen set on the walls and towers before Israel, as related in Ezekiel:

"Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman: If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people; Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head."
(Eze 33:2-4)

I fully understand (I think!) the position of "closed" communion. I like it. I would gladly err on this side of the debate, and I fully, wholly, despise "open" communion - however - the Bible seems to indicate a "close" interpretation, at least in Acts 20.

This also answers, tho certainly not a primary concern, the unease or discomfort many have with the total exclusion, or lack of acknowledgement, of our true brothers (of like faith & order), that accompanies "closed communion."

Just a little "modification" for the debate!

 

Whether a church chooses to practice open or closed communion is their business.

Whether I choose to be a part of either is my business. I prefer attending a church practicing open communion available to all believers.