In the other thread on Why the Lord's Table on Sunday Morning?, I succumbed to the temptation and helped derail the thread by discussing access to the Lord's Table.
I thought I had seen an earlier thread on Open or Closed Communion,but I couldn't find it, so I'm starting another thread to talk about it.
The question, I suppose, is not whether the Lord's Table should be limited. It is already limited to believers. At least I hope so.
The question is, how accessible?
All professed believers, regardless of denomination?
Baptized (immersed, sprinkled, poured) believers of every stripe?
Only immersed believers of every stripe?
Baptists of every kind?
Only Baptist churches of like faith and order?
Only members of your congregation?
I mentioned in the other thread that my own church makes the Lord's Table more accessible that I personally prefer. I have been a member there for 49 years, so obviously it is not a test fellowship for us.
Would it be for you? If you are open, would you join a closed-communion church? Vice Versa?
The Lord's Table: How Accessible?
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Tom Butler, Jun 10, 2011.
Page 1 of 2
-
-
One thing I have observed over the years is that your view of Lord's Table Accessibility is tied to what you believe about other things.
If you believe that The Lord's Supper is a Christian ordinance, you are more likely to embrace open communion.
If you believe that it is a church ordinance, your view will depend on whether you believe the "Church" is a local congregation or is "Universal," made up of all believers.
Closed Communionists are more likely to believe in the primacy of the local church, while the Opens will likely be U-churchers.
And, there are probably variations within those definitions. We're Baptists, remember. -
Yes, I believe in closed communion. I believe that it is the Biblical method and that it is the example given to us in Scripture. If your church doesn't believe that, then more power to them. I simply won't join and if I happen to be visiting when you have the Lord's Supper, I won't partake. What I won't do is sling mud around and call names. -
In my humble opinion..., a closed communion is simply not fair. A little self-righteousness here? A "closed" communion is perhaps the only way of telling another that in "my" opinion, they aren't worthy? Who has that right?
If one is not worthy of participating that will be dealt with later on between them and the Lord. If they say they are worthy why should anyone consider otherwise?
Just as the body has many members who's to say a "visitor" should not be permitted? He knows if he's a member of the Body of Christ or not. He's just visiting and the rest of us don't know him. Let him participate. -
I believe the Lord's Supper should be shared by all who will partake. It should be stated that the invite to participate is intended for those that have accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and who have given over their lives to Him.
I did not find in the Scripture that no one was asked to leave the upper room where the first Last Supper was observed. In fact, even Judas took part in the Lord's Supper.
For these reasons, I believe that observance of closing the Lord's Supper by any decision made by men is not biblical.
I think that if any Christian is excluded from the observance of the Lord's Supper because of membership reasons, then it is a church snack and not the Lord's Supper. I would say to them if they want to close something, then have a church members only social.
I understand why some might believe in the "closed" observance but I believe they are mistaken in their exegesis. I do prefer a "close" observance, that being one where only believers partake but that would be between them and God. -
-
Are any of these situations "not fair"? -
Our washrooms are labelled: Male or Female. Must be a privacy thing.
Cheers,
Jim:laugh: -
-
-
All should be welcome.
-
Could we also conclude that since no women participated, then communion should be closed to only men? - -
-
-
John 13:30
-
-
-
-
-
* No, I do not believe that sprinkling = baptism. What I'm saying is that you had a weak argument.
Page 1 of 2