Open Or Closed Communion

Sorry to again hijack this thread but this was the funniest post I've seen in a while... :laugh: :laugh:

Ok, I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

 

Tom,
Make a note that I did not start this thread. I appreciate you kind words for me, and they are so true, despite your communion stance. :laugh:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Butler
Dr. Rone said specifically that both are necessary. The congregation must exercise its function, even if it is imperfectly done; and the individual must examine himself.

One example I apply is Paul's urging the folks at Corinth to disfellowship a man who was having an open affair with his father's wife. The congregation has the authority to decide with whom it will fellowship, including the fellowship of the Lord's Supper. Open Communionists would have no basis for denying the Lord's Supper to this man. Or Mormons. Or Church of Christ. Or Catholics.

I don't want to diminish the importance of self-examination. It is so important, Paul warned that failure to do so could result in death.

But for an individual to insist that his own position should take precedence over that of the church for whom Jesus shed his own blood is presumptious, in my view. It is saying that the church has no right to judge him, contradicting Paul's own instruction for the church at Corinth to exercise some judgment on the man in Chapter 5.

 

You want to know something, LeBuick? That would scare me to death. That is a failure to "discern the Lord's body" if anything is. I would be afraid that Paul's warning to the Corinthian church might come true--some were sick and some died because they took communion in an unworthy manner.

I'm not exactly sure what Paul means when he says those folks who drink and eat (the Lord's Supper) unworthily drank damnation to themselves. But it's definitely not good.

I'd be afraid to go into that church. I wouldn't want to be there when the lightning struck.

 

I do not think there is any disagreement about this point. That includes the fact that the local congregation has the right to establish open communion as church policy.

 

I know you didn't, but I thought it helpful in a couple of ways. One, it would help if the BB folks understood some of the circumstances which influenced your view.

And two, it would be helpful to know that even though you and I don't see communion alike, we get along just fine. Some BB folks could learn from us.

 

Folks, I'm having trouble keeping up with all the posts, so if you post something and I don't reply, it's probably because I just missed it. And all this mental exercise has made me tired, and right now I have the attention span of a gnat. So I'm bowing out for the night. Take your best shots while I'm gone and I'll try to pick up again tomorrow.

I appreciate the spirit and tone of the your responses to what I wrote. They were helpful to me.

 

The example you use is regarding Church expulsion. Paul was encouriging them to protect the body by removing the leaven which was spoiling the loaf. I guess you can apply this to communion if you want...

 

The house supervisor where I work at is a preacher. He has went to churches when he was invited to preach the night they broke bread, drank the fruit of the vine, and did the feet washing. Right before the sacrament part of the service started, they announced to all who were not members of that church could not take part in it. Talk about a closed communion! The only ones who took it were the actual members of that church ONLY!! My house supervisor was allowed to partake because he was invited to preach for them that night, or he wouldn't have been able to do it.

 

I don't know what harm it would be to the non-believer but it would be we who would not be "decerning" the Lord's body by giving it to the unworthly.
Before the bread or fruit of the vine is served, there is prayer asking the Lord to bless the table and the bread and fruit of the vine as being the Lord's representing His actual body and the fruit of the vine as His actual blood. If we gave it knowingly to the unworthy, it would be us who was taking the Lord's supper in error.

I actually have the remainder of the bread and fruit of the vine buried by the Deacons, after our communion.

BBob,

 

I can respect either view, open or closed, to me it is not an issue like the ME we just went through. From your post, it seems their policy is inconsistant. You are either for closed communion or against it, and that includes everyone.

I have run across individuals who believe in closed communion and turn right around and partake of it at another church.

 

Allow me to clarify the statement in bold text.

I'm saying that only one local body has the right to serve a man communion, and that is the one that has the authority to discipline him if the need arose.

 

That about says it all Aaron!!

 

Hey, it's Brother Bob, Aaron and me against the world. Guys,we've got 'em surrounded.

See you after church.

 

Guys, sorry to keep pushing against the walls of the triangle you have us surrounded in but I'm not sure about this; Is Church discipline limited to the local body? Or is EVERY Christian obligated to say something to ANY Christian they see weak in the fight to do well?

Gal 6:1 Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

Notice Paul doesn't say ye which are in his Church family. He doesn't say ye which go to the same Church. He says "ye which are spiritual". This is the body of Christ and not just the local Church. We don't bear one anothers burdens so our own Church will look good, we bear them to fulfill the law of Christ.

Sorry to rant, I can see one of our differences is your view of the local Church as opposed to the complete Body of Christ. You seem to believe Christ has many bodies (each local Church being a complete body) where as I believe Christ has one body with many members (each local Church being a member). Am I close?

I take when Paul says in Romans 12:5 “So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another”, I take this as the body of baptized believers and not a local Church. Do you take these verses as the local Church is the body?

Ro 12:5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

1Co 10:17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 14 For the body is not one member, but many.

 

We've been through this before. You are misreading Corinthians. It has nothing to do with being worthy. There is only One who is worthy, and it ain't us.

It's about partaking in a worthy manner, or worthily. Adverb. How they do it. And it only applies to believers, since it only has meaning to believers.

 

An attack on the ordinances is an attack on the body. Open Communion, in my view, is an attack on the ordinances.

 

How do you do that if you are unworthy.

Jhn 6:54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

 

You partake with respect, discerning the Lord's body, and showing love for one another. The Corinthians were partaking in an unworthy manner, getting drunk, eating up the food before others arrived so that there was none left for those who came later, etc.

 

I agree with that.