Open, close, closed Communion?

[Revmitchell]

This proper sanctified relationship to Christ requires that the metaphorical body of Christ which is observing it first examine its self as a church body (1 Cor. 5) for KNOWN sin and sinners that must be first removed in order to partake of the Supper and the lack of such examination and removal invalidates it as the Supper.

Second, the indivdual members of the observing church must examine themselves for sin only known to themselves. If they fail to do this, then the supper is invalidated to them as individuals (1 Cor. 11:25-30).

Hence, the proper sanctified relationship to Christ required to observe the Lord's Supper is a church body that has examined itself and removed known leaven from its midst and then individual members of that body who have examined themselves and removed known leaven in their lives.

Bro. Mark

This is a common error and really should be reconsidered by those who hold to it. The reason it is in error is it assumes that because Christ died for our sin and for this reason His body was broken that God's intent in the Lord's Supper is an examination of sin in one's life.

The context of the passage is not about sin in one's life but about the manner in which the Lord's Supper is provided. This is made clear in vs. 20-22 and then made more clear in v. 27 "unworthy manner" (ESV). It is clear that Paul's intentions was to correct the lack of reverence for Christ and His sacrifice:

1Co 11:29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.


Even in v.34 Paul is still speaking of the manner in which the Lord'ssupper is taken:

if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home--so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come.


Sin in the live of Christians never comes into view in this passage.

 

[Revmitchell]

And while I believe Judas is a terrible argument for opening the Lord's Supper to non-church members I do not see in scripture a reason to close it.

 

[Jerome]

Jesus presided over the Passover meal before instituting the Lord's Supper. He gave Judas the sop (which was not part of the Lord's Supper), and Judas left immediately.

Very creative timeline, but does it accord with Scripture?

Luke 22:19-21
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.

Judas has left (according to you); now how is his hand still on the table?
Fast onset leprosy?

 

[Tom Butler]

Okay, let's look at the scriptures for the answer: (Thanks to O. H. Griffith for the help).

Let's look at John 13;21-30.

V.21 Jesus says one of the 12 will betray him.

Each one asked, Lord, is it I (Matthew 26:22)

Peter motioned to John to ask Jesus who it was (v.24)

John asked, who is it? (v. 25)

Jesus answered, the one to whom I will give the sop. Remember, nowhere is the bread of the Lord's Supper dipped before it was eaten. Only at the Passover. He gave it to Judas (v. 26)

Then Satan entered Judas, and Jesus said to him, what you do, do it quickly. (v. 27)

Judas immediately left (v.30)

Both Matthew and Mark make it clear that the Passover meal preceded the Lord's Supper. Judas left during the Passover meal.

 

[Allan]

Okay, let's look at the scriptures for the answer: (Thanks to O. H. Griffith for the help).

Let's look at John 13;21-30.

V.21 Jesus says one of the 12 will betray him.

Each one asked, Lord, is it I (Matthew 26:22)

Peter motioned to John to ask Jesus who it was (v.24)

John asked, who is it? (v. 25)

Jesus answered, the one to whom I will give the sop. Remember, nowhere is the bread of the Lord's Supper dipped before it was eaten. Only at the Passover. He gave it to Judas (v. 26)

Then Satan entered Judas, and Jesus said to him, what you do, do it quickly. (v. 27)

Judas immediately left (v.30)

Both Matthew and Mark make it clear that the Passover meal preceded the Lord's Supper. Judas left during the Passover meal.

I'm not going to get into this thread, but Tom, you didn't address the passage given , but went elsewhere:

Luk 22:17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide [it] among yourselves:
Luk 22:18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
Luk 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
Luk 22:21 But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me [is] with me on the table.
Luk 22:22 And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!
Luk 22:23 And they began to enquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing.

Is this the one passage of scripture that is incorrect?

BTW - I'm not arguing for or against but what you gave only used Mat, and Mark .. but why does the person you quote, leave out Luke?

 

[rsr]

This is a common error and really should be reconsidered by those who hold to it. The reason it is in error is it assumes that because Christ died for our sin and for this reason His body was broken that God's intent in the Lord's Supper is an examination of sin in one's life.

The context of the passage is not about sin in one's life but about the manner in which the Lord's Supper is provided. This is made clear in vs. 20-22 and then made more clear in v. 27 "unworthy manner" (ESV). It is clear that Paul's intentions was to correct the lack of reverence for Christ and His sacrifice:

1Co 11:29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.


Even in v.34 Paul is still speaking of the manner in which the Lord'ssupper is taken:

if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home--so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come.


Sin in the live of Christians never comes into view in this passage.

I think you are correct. The emphasis is on discernment of the Lord's body in the ordinance (and hence His sacrifice and our participation in His righteousness), not on the "worthiness" of the partaker. It may be that living in unrepentant sin does indeed mock the taking of the Body and Blood, but the context seems to indicate that is not what Paul had in mind, at least not primarily.

 

[Tom Butler]

Ben Stratton, a former member of this board, wrote an article for SBC Today, noting that for the first 100 years of its existence, Southern Baptists were closed-communion folks. And so were other Baptist groups before that, some of whom opposed Landmarkism.

Here's part of what he wrote:

During the early years of the Southern Baptist Convention, one of the most popular writers was J.B. Jeter. He edited the "Religious Herald" Baptist paper in Virginia from 1865 until his death in 1880. In 1876 he authored a series of articles on "Distinctive Baptist Principles" that were later republished in the book "Baptist Principles Reset" in 1902. He wrote, "Open communion, on the part of Baptists, is not only unauthorized, but impolitic . . . We believe that it is substantially forbidden; but that if it were not, it would be impolitic for Baptists, with their responsibility and aims to practice it. They believe that on them devolves the duty of restoring the ordinances of Christ to their primitive simplicity, design, and order, and of promoting the organization of churches according to the apostolic model. This is their mission, and they should avoid whatever tends to defeat it. Open communion clearly leads in this direction." (Page 107) Jeter considered open communion to not only be unscriptural, but also impolitic, which means not wise or expedient.

Ben Stratton says the rise of open communion coincided with the rise of liberalism within the SBC.

The full article is here: http://sbctoday.com/2008/12/08/restricted-communion-and-the-opponents-of-landmarkism/

 

[Allan]

Ben Stratton, a former member of this board, wrote an article for SBC Today, noting that for the first 100 years of its existence, Southern Baptists were closed-communion folks. And so were other Baptist groups before that, some of whom opposed Landmarkism.

Here's part of what he wrote:



Ben Stratton says the rise of open communion coincided with the rise of liberalism within the SBC.

The full article is here: http://sbctoday.com/2008/12/08/restricted-communion-and-the-opponents-of-landmarkism/

Yes, the SBC did hold to such but the question isn't whether the SBC held such but whether scripture warrants such. The SBC held to segregation as well claiming it was biblical, but then recanted later. We (those of us in the SBC as a whole) are not perfect but the fact it was done before nor that it was the orthodox view at the time, does it necessitate they were correct.

TOM Stop it.. Your doing it again.. I'm.. dragged.. in...

Nope, I'm done .. Keep the faith brother.

 

[Tom Butler]

Heh heh, Allan, you crack me up. You know what hot buttons to push to drag me in, too.

We could turn the question you asked around and ask why I'm the only one who cited Matthew and Mark's gospel, and I think I'm the only one who used John's account, as well.

Of course, I don't believe the accounts conflict, but sometimes I don't know how to resolve what seem to be differences. Maybe Jerome could offer his thoughts, since he cited the Luke account and none others.

 

[Tom Butler]

Yes, the SBC did hold to such but the question isn't whether the SBC held such but whether scripture warrants such.

No argument here. Scripture always trumps everything else. But the fact that a huge majority of Southern Baptists held to closed communion for a century, and claimed a scriptural basis for that view should not be just blown off. In fact, it is said of Baptists that we are "people of the Book."

19th century Baptists did not just pick closed communion our of thin air.

 

[Allan]

No argument here. Scripture always trumps everything else. But the fact that a huge majority of Southern Baptists held to closed communion for a century, and claimed a scriptural basis for that view should not be just blown off. In fact, it is said of Baptists that we are "people of the Book."

19th century Baptists did not just pick closed communion our of thin air.

Oh I agree brother. However neither did they move away from it, just out of thin air.

Again, I'm not saying whether or not it is right or wrong, I think there is ample scripture for both sides. Therefore, is it not up to the local assembly?

 

[Tom Butler]

Again, I'm not saying whether or not it is right or wrong, I think there is ample scripture for both sides. Therefore, is it not up to the local assembly?

I quite agree. While I personally hold to closed communion, the church I serve is more "close" than "closed." And as a deacon who serves the Lord's Supper, I would not slap the hand of a non-member who reaches for the bread or cup.

It is not a test of fellowship for me. I have been in churches when they observed open Communion. Even though the pastor invited all baptized believers to participate, I declined in order to be consistent with my view.

But this is a debate forum and a great place to test my views in the fire, and seek to persuade others. If I can't persuade, maybe i can at least chip away and create some uncertainty among those who hold different views.

As I'm typing this, my beloved wife Janice walked in and said, "Are you stirring up trouble again?" She knows me well.

 

[Dr. Walter]

My friend, The issue of the Lord's Supper does not begin in chapter 11. It begins in chapter 5 and continues in chapter 10 and concludes in chapter 11.

It is not an either/or between "manner" in chapter 11 and failure to discern the Lord's body as symbolized in the bread in chapter 5 - it is both. In fact, improper condition of the church in chapter five invalidates the supper as much as improper manner invalidates it in chapter eleven.

In chapter five the church body observing it is leavened and therefore unprepared/unfit because they have failed to discern the typology involved in "unleavened" bread and typology of preparation.

In chapter ten there are those who are attempting to eat at the tables of demons and at the table of the Lord and Paul says that cannot be done and thus those partaking of it in that condition (not manner) invalidate their own observance as they partake of it unworthily.

In chapter eleven, the SCHISMATIC condition of the church invalidates the observation as a church (11:17-20) as well as the manner (11:21-22).

In the latter part of chapter eleven all the preceding is under consideration. BOTH the CONDITION and the MANNER in which the church as a body partook invalidates it as well as both the CONDITION and MANNER invalidates it in regard to the individual. The bottom line problem is failure to "discern" which underlies both the wrong CONDITION and wrong MANNER.

This is a common error and really should be reconsidered by those who hold to it. The reason it is in error is it assumes that because Christ died for our sin and for this reason His body was broken that God's intent in the Lord's Supper is an examination of sin in one's life.

The context of the passage is not about sin in one's life but about the manner in which the Lord's Supper is provided. This is made clear in vs. 20-22 and then made more clear in v. 27 "unworthy manner" (ESV). It is clear that Paul's intentions was to correct the lack of reverence for Christ and His sacrifice:

1Co 11:29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.


Even in v.34 Paul is still speaking of the manner in which the Lord'ssupper is taken:

if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home--so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come.


Sin in the live of Christians never comes into view in this passage.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The kind of metaphorical body of Christ represented in the Lord's Supper cannot possibly consist of all Christians or a universal invisilbe body of Christ. If that were the case then the following would be also true:

1. One sinning "brother" could leaven the "whole" universal invisible church

2. No Christian on earth could partake of the Supper until every "brother" (5:11) in open sin was somehow removed from such a body so as to make it a "new" body.

3. The local church could remove and restore members of the Universal Invisible Church by local church discipline if the church body represented in the Supper was the so-called universal invisible church.

If the bread used in the Lord's Supper is restricted to the kind of church which as a "WHOLE" could be leavened by ONE sinning "brother" and the removal of which would make this "WHOLE" body membership different than before "NEW" then the symbolism of the bread either restricts the church of Christ to a local visible body or local church discipline removes or enlarges the Universal invisible church theory and salvation can be gained and lost and regained.

The "bread" symbolizes the church as the body of Christ and therefore observance of the Lord's Supper is restricted to the membership of that kind of church being symbolized. Hence, the bread in the Lord's Supper limits and thus defines the nature of the true church of Christ.

 

[Revmitchell]

My friend, The issue of the Lord's Supper does not begin in chapter 11. It begins in chapter 5 and continues in chapter 10 and concludes in chapter 11.

It is not an either/or between "manner" in chapter 11 and failure to discern the Lord's body as symbolized in the bread in chapter 5 - it is both. In fact, improper condition of the church in chapter five invalidates the supper as much as improper manner invalidates it in chapter eleven.

In chapter five the church body observing it is leavened and therefore unprepared/unfit because they have failed to discern the typology involved in "unleavened" bread and typology of preparation.

In chapter ten there are those who are attempting to eat at the tables of demons and at the table of the Lord and Paul says that cannot be done and thus those partaking of it in that condition (not manner) invalidate their own observance as they partake of it unworthily.

In chapter eleven, the SCHISMATIC condition of the church invalidates the observation as a church (11:17-20) as well as the manner (11:21-22).

In the latter part of chapter eleven all the preceding is under consideration. BOTH the CONDITION and the MANNER in which the church as a body partook invalidates it as well as both the CONDITION and MANNER invalidates it in regard to the individual. The bottom line problem is failure to "discern" which underlies both the wrong CONDITION and wrong MANNER.

There is nothing in chapters 5 or 10 that gives any indication that Paul is connecting those chapters with the Lord's Supper. In fact it is without doubt when he exactly makes such a connection.

1Co 11:20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat.
1Co 11:21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk.



That word "for" makes the connection you are looking for. From that point on it is all about the manner.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I respectfully but very very strongly disagree with you:

"For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. if a brother....not to eat with such" - I Cor. 5:7-8, 11

What "feast" are we commanded as Christian "Let us keep" wherein is the use of "unleavened bread" that can be described as "Christ OUR Passover" which "is sacrificed for us" which we "eat" with those we call a "brother" other than the Lord's Supper???????

Furthermore, you fail to see that Paul is clearly alluding to the command of God to the children of Israel that when they come into the land they are to PREPARE for the feast of Passover by removing all leaven from their houses. Hence, He is referring to proper ADVANCE PREPARATION to keep the passover and is directly applying this to the church of God at Corinth as he formerly described them as "God's building" and God's "temple" in 1 Cor. 3:9, 16).

The command to first "purge out" before keeping the feast clearly and unmistakenly demands church discipline of the sinning brother (vv. 1-5) BEFORE the church can partake of it worthily as a CHURCH BODY as he clearly and distinctly identifies the church body observing this feast as "ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened.."

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.......But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils." - I Cor. 10:16-17, 20-21

If the above is not a direct reference to the Lord's Supper than what does it refer to??????? He clearly and unmistakenly denies that they can partake of the Supper while in this condition - meaning, they fail again to discern the Lord's Body in the symbolism of "unleavened" bread and thus invalidate the Supper in regard to those in this condition.

The discussion on the Lord's Supper begins in chapter 5, continues in chapter 10 and concludes in chapter 11. Paul considers both the CONDITION and MANNER of both the church as a body and individual members thereof in properly discerning of the Lord's body as represented in "unleavened" bread.

There is nothing in chapters 5 or 10 that gives any indication that Paul is connecting those chapters with the Lord's Supper. In fact it is without doubt when he exactly makes such a connection.

1Co 11:20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's supper that you eat.
1Co 11:21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk.



That word "for" makes the connection you are looking for. From that point on it is all about the manner.

 

[Dr. Walter]

My friends, I respectfully disagree. Mistakes in the past do not justify mistakes in the present. Many of our forefathers practiced things we do not believe are right today (feet washing, etc.).

No church has any rights to do what they please. Rights are given the Church by the Lord through His word. No church has the right to change or disobey His Word.

Remember, the bread represents the "WHOLE" lump which the observing church is not only REQUIRED to change, but can change into a "NEW" lump through church discipline (when a known sinner in the midst).

Close communion would allow for the observing church to alter the membership of the "WHOLE" and if the "WHOLE" is a denominational "church" then every individual church can administer discipline over the members of other churches in that denomination.

The symbolism of the unleavened bread is "one bread" (I Cor. 10:16) and is the "WHOLE" lump. This necessarily restricts observance to those WITHIN the membership of that kind of church being symbolized. Is there more than one kind of church?

I quite agree. While I personally hold to closed communion, the church I serve is more "close" than "closed." And as a deacon who serves the Lord's Supper, I would not slap the hand of a non-member who reaches for the bread or cup.

It is not a test of fellowship for me. I have been in churches when they observed open Communion. Even though the pastor invited all baptized believers to participate, I declined in order to be consistent with my view.

But this is a debate forum and a great place to test my views in the fire, and seek to persuade others. If I can't persuade, maybe i can at least chip away and create some uncertainty among those who hold different views.

As I'm typing this, my beloved wife Janice walked in and said, "Are you stirring up trouble again?" She knows me well.

 

[Tom Butler]

My friends, I respectfully disagree. Mistakes in the past do not justify mistakes in the present. Many of our forefathers practiced things we do not believe are right today (feet washing, etc.).

No church has any rights to do what they please. Rights are given the Church by the Lord through His word. No church has the right to change or disobey His Word.

Of course, no congregation has the right to do as it pleases. It is bound by the scriptures. On communion, I agree with your position. My congregation, citing scripture, reaches a different conclusion. It is bound to that position based on its collective reading of scripture.

And so it is for each congregation. No other body may force a different position on it.

And what the SBC did for its first 100 years is not binding on any subsequent congregation. However, the fact that all those churches saw the scriptures the same way for a century is no small factor to consider. And a constant search for truth will demand that we examine the rationale for that view without smugness or arrogance.

We are on the same side, here.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

My friends, I respectfully disagree. Mistakes in the past do not justify mistakes in the present. Many of our forefathers practiced things we do not believe are right today (feet washing, etc.).

No church has any rights to do what they please. Rights are given the Church by the Lord through His word. No church has the right to change or disobey His Word.

Remember, the bread represents the "WHOLE" lump which the observing church is not only REQUIRED to change, but can change into a "NEW" lump through church discipline (when a known sinner in the midst).

Close communion would allow for the observing church to alter the membership of the "WHOLE" and if the "WHOLE" is a denominational "church" then every individual church can administer discipline over the members of other churches in that denomination.

The symbolism of the unleavened bread is "one bread" (I Cor. 10:16) and is the "WHOLE" lump. This necessarily restricts observance to those WITHIN the membership of that kind of church being symbolized. Is there more than one kind of church?

I'm trying to understand what you are saying. Are you saying that people who are part of the fellowship yet not members of the church should be able to receive communion? Also People from other denominations should be able to receive communion? Please clarify.

 

[Dr. Walter]

If bro. Stratton said that the entire Southern Baptist Convention for the first 100 years was "close" communion, then he is not factually correct. There was "closed" communionists within the first 30 years among Southern Baptists right up to the present.



QUOTE=Tom Butler;1545652]Ben Stratton, a former member of this board, wrote an article for SBC Today, noting that for the first 100 years of its existence, Southern Baptists were closed-communion folks. And so were other Baptist groups before that, some of whom opposed Landmarkism.

Here's part of what he wrote:



Ben Stratton says the rise of open communion coincided with the rise of liberalism within the SBC.

The full article is here: http://sbctoday.com/2008/12/08/restricted-communion-and-the-opponents-of-landmarkism/[/QUOTE]