There is one thing I have learned from this thread, most minds are made up on this subject and are not likely to be changed.
Open Or Closed Communion
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Bro. Williams, Sep 22, 2007.
Page 9 of 9
-
-
-
RE: Open or closed communion?
Willis -
-
QUOTE
Originally Posted by npetreley
I don't know if you're referring to my comment, but let me clarify something. I'm not a pastor, I have no desire to be one, and I'm certainly not qualified. But if I were a pastor, I would certainly not announce that the communion is for everyone, including unbelievers. That is definitely not what I meant when I said I don't see the harm in unbelievers partaking. I would simply explain the communion and then have the elements passed around. Whoever takes it, takes it.
UNQUOTE
That's how our Pastor does it. He explains what it means and it is only for believers to partake of it, then we pass out the meal through the aisles. the people decide if they are in a place to partake. Who are we to try to decide whos saved or not. -
-
-
In post 63 I said that it is not clear that Judas participated in the Lord's Supper, since he left.
In post 70,
He cites John 13:21-30.
-
Griffith starts with his conclusion and then uses logical fallacies to make scripture fit the conclusion. His "reasoning" contradicts Luke, which makes it clear Judas was there for the Lord's supper.
-
I'm curious. I'm assuming that even the open communion advocates here all agree that the Lord's Supper is for believers only. Beyond that, we seem to be all over the lot.
I'm a strong believer in in the truism that where you start determines where you end up. So here's a quiz of sorts to see where you start, and if it's consistent with where you've ended up.
1. Would you allow an unbaptized person to take the Lord's Supper?
2. Would you define scriptural baptism as the immersion of a believer by an ordained Baptist minister or deacon acting under the authority of a local church? Or immersed by a minister or deacon ordained by a church of like faith and order?
3. If not, what's your definition?
4. Would you accept as valid immersion that which is held to be sacramental?
5. Would you permit one to participate who had merely been sprinkled or poured?
4. Would you accept as valid immersion by a church which holds to baptismal regeneration? This is similar to #4
5. Would you accept as valid immersion by a church which believes one may lose his salvation?
6. Would you welcome someone who was baptized as an infant? Or comes from a paedobaptist church?
7. Would you welcome an immersed Mormon to the Lord's table?
8. Would you welcome to the Lord's table someone with whom you have serious doctrinal disagreements?
9. Would you welcome to the Lord's table someone recently disfellowshipped from your Baptist church for flagrant sin or a disorderly walk?
10. Would you welcome someone disfellowshipped from another Baptist Church?
11. Should your church even observe the Lord's Supper in the middle of conflict in your congregation? If so, why so?
12. Of those whom you would welcome to the Lord's table, which ones would you deny membership in your church? Which would you admit?
13. How close would you describe your views to Baptists as far back as years ago--the majority of which held to closed communion?
Feel free to defend your answers, of course.
Your answers could help us to quit talking past each other and get to the real reasons we hold the views we do. -
-
In the course of my theological journey, I have changed my views several times--and it took a lot of other things in a different direction as well.
Looks as if that happened to you. As long as you persisted in unbelief, the inevitable outcome was hell. When you changed from unbelief to belief, so did your destination.
So, do you want to take a crack at the quiz? -
I'm bumping this thread to see if anybody would like to take a crack at the questions I posed in post #170.
I also went back to I Cor 11 17ff. It is there that Paul speaks of divisions and heresies in the Corinth congregation. I read Paul's comments to mean that as long as there are such, they shouldn't take the Lord's Supper. Further, that while such divisions and heresies exist, calling it the Lord's Supper doesn't make it so.
When we open the Lord's table to any professing believer, regardless of denomination, we are inviting division and heresy into our midst.
We also risk doing the same thing when we invite other Baptists or those of like faith and order to participate, because they are strangers to us. There are even heretics and troublemakers who claim to be Baptists. The risk is too great to risk condemnation for even unknowingly inviting outsiders to the table.
There are Baptist churches in our area which accept alien baptism. They have created a division by their actions.
When Paul wrote to the Corinth church, he not only told the members to examine themselves, but he counseled the congregation to get its act together as well. Otherwise, I think he's saying, taking the Lord's Supper is a farce.
Page 9 of 9