Open, close, closed Communion?

Eagle, the alibi of those who imagine that that church excluded Paul from communion is that Paul was only having a mid-sermon snack break in verse 11:laugh:

 

Thanks Jerome, for the assist -- and for the levity!

It seems pretty evident that Paul had "broken bread" and had "eaten", by verse 11 of Acts 20.

 

Hey Tom, how you doin'?

You are right in the quote above, we have here an apparent conflict. How to resolve?

Firstly, I think that both due to a desire to be careful with God's Word, and due to a fear that some might say we are 'twisting' to make it fit, or not 'literally interpreting,' etc., that we are way too hesitant sometimes to simply let the clear understanding make the case, and then 'make' or 'allow' the subordinate understanding be just that - subordinate. Therefore:

Secondly, the clear understanding, as you cited from more than one place, is that Judas left. The subordinate understanding is that 'figuratively' (oh no! don't use that word!) Judas did eat at Jesus table, and was numbered among Christ's followers - whether actually present at that specific time or not. Of course, I suppose it possible that Judas returned to the table by the time of Jesus' statement - tho I think highly unlikely.

I only bring this in to illustrate, that it is OK to interpret scripture in this way. It is simple and easy, not strained or convoluted. No contradictions, everything compatible. In fact, I propose that this is how we must interpret scripture - it is a part of letting scripture interpret scripture.

As to it's pertinence or relevance to my previously stated position on Communion - it is moot. Christ did not then, nor does his ecclessia (body) now, use force to prevent any from eating. We teach & warn. We do not post sentries at the table, nor do I think, giving interviews, etc., is biblical. We maintain 'due diligence' so to speak, by clearly teaching & warning - the rest is up to the individual. God expects 'due diligence' from His church, not precise, exact control over who "eats". Honestly, we kid ourselves if we think that whatever interviews, scrutiny, etc., we bring to bear - that we will actually prevent all who are "unworthy" of partaking.

That said, I respect those who have undertaken these steps for what they are intending - I just think it is an unnecessary burden on all involved (extra-biblical), and can perhaps paint us as weird, odd, extreme, cultish, etc., unnecessarily.

I realize the world may (and does) view us this way anyway, and that we say "we don't care" what they think, however, there is no need to unneccessarily add to this, and possibly cause detriment to our cause - without biblical mandate.

 

Hello Dr. Walter,

Actually, it does not say, "the church (brethren) broke bread". Rather, it says, "When he [Paul] therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten..." (KJV)

Also, what I find a "stretch" as you say, is to base a doctrine on an imperfect illustration (interpretation) of a Hebrew metaphor. I understand that there is more evidence for your position - but what you keep hammering is this metaphor - which makes me a little uneasy, at the least. Bring more substance. What you are holding forth is what I would call subordinate, corroborative, complementary, etc., evidence -- not the meat or main support evidence.

 

The interesting thing of your comment is that Jesus started the Lord's Supper with his disciples, who then did not attend one local church with each other, but were spread out. I would not think that denying any of them in participating in a communal Lord's supper would then thereafter be appropriate.

 

J. R. Graves, Old Landmarkism:

 

I do not understand where this statement comes from. Most, if not all, the disciples were still in Jerusalem, in the upper room, at Pentecost, attending "church,"near as I can tell. On what basis do you say,"...who then did not attend one local church with each other..."?

 

I would also add that tho Graves may have been right about many things - he certainly would have had an "agenda" to ensure a "closed communion" interpretation, in order to mesh with, and support, his other Landmark positions.

 

One other point to add: The "lump" cannot be the Universal Church, since purging the leaven from the U-church will result in that person losing his salvation. If salvation places one in the U-Church, expelling one from the U-church necessitates taking their salvation from them.

Oh, that's crazy, one might say. No, I'm just taking an argument to its logical conclusion.

The only lump from which leaven can be purged is the local lump, not the universal lump. The U-lump, if it existed, must remain divided and error-filled, since there is no mechanism for dealing with the dividers, troublemakers, and false prophets.

 

The bottom line is that each local church decides whether it is open or closed communion. However one views the matter, there is no problem finding a local Baptist church that believes like you do, as they are all over the map.

Despite all the misapplied verses, common sense goes a long way. How can anyone use the local church roll as a defining standard of communion when probably 60% or so never or very rarely attend, do not support the church, and do not participate in its ministries. In other words, they show no signs of regeneration. This is the type of person for which closed communion argues the right to participate in the Lord's Supper. It is an artificial man made standard with no merit.

If you want to belong to a denomination that practices closed communion, may I suggest the Catholic, Church of Christ, or Mormon faiths.