Open, close, closed Communion?

[Dr. Walter]

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.

No, the bottom line is "thus saith the Lord" as no church has authority to do as they please even though they may freel disobey God's Word. Their action is not the standard of right or wrong.

If you think there are misapplied verses, I for one, would like to know what they are and why they are? I don't think you can back up what you are saying!

The Lord's Supper like baptism is to be administered to PROFESSING people of God as the administrators cannot go beyond that and therefore the ordinances cannot go beyond that. To argue proper administration on the basis of the heart of a person goes beyond the administrator's ability and so to make that the basis for proper administration is simply ignorance gone wild.

Those who make your line of argument simply dismiss chapters five and ten as relating to the Lord's Supper and then ignore I Cor. 11:18-20. I could have used verses 18-20 to totally disprove open communion as a valid Biblical alternative as such division that exists in the so-called u-church is obvious and yet it is that very kind of schism that Paul says prohibits any observation to be rightly called "the Lord's Supper" (v. 20).

If you are serious and want a serious discussion about the pertinent scriptures and facts then the door is wide open.

 

[saturneptune]

All you have shown is that you use Bible verses to support your man made standards for the Lord's Supper. Remember, the phrase is "thus saith the Lord" not "Dr. Walter's opinion of what thus saith the Lord means."

I would suggest you reread the posts of Rev Mitchell. Judas is a terrible argument for either side of the question. Also, another error in your posts is your definition of what PROFESSING people of God. Oh, and by the way, your phrase "ignorance gone wild" seems to be the basis of most of your posts, to be honest.

How does 1 Cor 11 18-20 argue for closed communion, when the standard you have established is an unregenerated local church roll? The verses are talking about the proper attitude when taking the Lord's Supper.

I said nothing about the Universal Church. To me, it has no function on earth. The Lord's Supper is a local church ordinance, and each church decides. If you are unhappy with your local church on the issue, then move on.

 

[Dr. Walter]

All you have shown is that you use Bible verses to support your man made standards for the Lord's Supper. Remember, the phrase is "thus saith the Lord" not "Dr. Walter's opinion of what thus saith the Lord means."

I would suggest you reread the posts of Rev Mitchell. Judas is a terrible argument for either side of the question. Also, another error in your posts is your definition of what PROFESSING people of God. Oh, and by the way, your phrase "ignorance gone wild" seems to be the basis of most of your posts, to be honest.

How does 1 Cor 11 18-20 argue for closed communion, when the standard you have established is an unregenerated local church roll? The verses are talking about the proper attitude when taking the Lord's Supper.

I said nothing about the Universal Church. To me, it has no function on earth. The Lord's Supper is a local church ordinance, and each church decides. If you are unhappy with your local church on the issue, then move on.

Judas is not a valid argument at all. Have you studied the jewish observation of the Passover and the four differen cups that divide the passover observation. Obviously not or you would not even suggest Judas is a valid argument. Of course historical context may not be even a factor in your rules of intepretation.

I don't have any idea what kind of church you are talking about where the majority are lost members. By the way how do you know they are lost members? Such a conclusion is very revealing about attitude.

Obviously you have either not read my posts on this subject or don't understand them. They are filled with "thus saith the Lord" and by the statement "thus saith the Lord" I mean SCRIPTURE. You have yet to demonstrate where I abused any scriptural reference in 1 Cor. 5, 10 or 11. Get to the point and demonstrate if you can?

I Corinthians 11:18-20 has reference to the schism in the church first introduced in I Corinthians 1:12-13 where they were divided into fractions or little denominational parties following a particular personality. This CONDITION that introduces Paul's conclusion that what they were observing was not to be recognized as "the Lord's Supper" followed by a MANNER that abused it as well (vv. 21-23). The u-church is in this same condition - divided in worship, divided in doctrine, divided in leadership. The symbolism of the "unleavened" bread demands that no such OPEN and KNOWN division is to be present if the Supper is to be a valid observation as "valid" depends upon meeting the symbolism in the Supper just as much as "valid" depends upon meeting the symbolism in baptism. A church cannot possibly observe "open" communion and avoid knowing it invites those who are not in UNITY to participate.

Now, I apologize for being abrasive, as that only creates heat and not light. I would like to discuss this with you in gentlemanly manner if that is possible.

 

[Dr. Walter]

A word about Judas and closed communion

The proper administration of the Lord's Supper is for baptized believing church members and this can be demonstrated first by precept in Matthew 28:19-20 as further illustrated in Acts 2:41-42 all of which compared with I Cor. 5, 10,11. Observation of "all things commanded" follows gospel conversion and baptism in the Great Commission. The third aspect of the commission "teaching them to observe all things" follows church membership as demonstrated in Acts 2:41 "added unto them" and necessarily so, because the third aspect is impossible to obey apart from church membership. Therefore, baptism is for believers and the Lord's supper is for baptized believing church members as that is the order in the commission and in its first spelled out administration. Notice breaking of bread follows "added unto them" in Acts 2:41-42 rather than precedes it.

Judas was a lost man from the beginning (Jn. 6:64-65) who made a false profession and yet Christ selected him purposely and placed him in the church. Paul tells the Corinthians that God purposely allows such in the church to manifest those who are truely his (I Cor. 11:19).

Closed communion is not determined by the UNKNOWN but by the KNOWN. Judas was UNKNOWN to all but Christ and there was no MANIFEST evidence to make Judas KNOWN to the church and only omniscience realized it. Paul does not make what is UNKNOWN TO THE CHURCH the basis of restricting the Lord's supper. The problem in chapter five was what was "COMMONLY REPORTED" not what was unknown to the church. The problem in chapter eleven in regard to the individual was UNKNOWN TO THE CHURCH but known to the individual and what was KNOWN to the individual was what invalidated the Supper to that individual. In neither case (chapter five or chapter eleven) did Christ lead Paul to say that proper administration depended upon the UNREVEALED condition of any member lost or saved. Judas could have observed the Supper and it was still a closed communion - closed to professing baptized church members whose spiritual status and condition were UNREVEALED TO THE CHURCH.

However, we are told that Judas left after the sop had been dipped and given him. The sop was dipped at the close of the second cup in the passover before the third cup which was called "the cup of blessing." Hence, Judas did not participate in the third cup where the Lord's Supper was instituted.

 

[saturneptune]

Yes, we can take the heat out of the discussion. Just remember who threw the first lob. I fail to understand why you keep bringing up the universal church. It has nothing to do with open or closed communion. The decision of the local church has to do with the administration of the Lord's Supper. I never brought up the Judas argument. I commented that those who did in this thread did not make the case for either side. I do agree Judas left before the actual Supper was administered by the Lord.

As far as the church roll goes, I do not know for 100% certainty that the members on any roll who have not been to the church in years except on Christmas, Easter, or times of trouble are lost. I cannot know for sure if those members who never give of time, talents or money are lost. I cannot know for sure those members do not show one sign of regeneration are lost or not. However, I can make a very reasonable guess with my finite mind. To give this known behavior the benefit of the doubt and allow participation, then turn right around and question the right of someone who comes to worship your local church on any given Sunday of the Lord's Supper who is not a member is the height of worldly thinking.

This way of looking at things in no way takes away the right of each local church to choose. Locally, we have churches in three camps, open, closed and close.

Does it not bother you that churches like the Catholic, Church of Christ, and Mormon practice closed communion? That is bells and whistles going off right there.

I do agree with your point in 1 Cor 11:18-20, it was the manner in which they were taking the Lord's Supper.

Maybe another interpretation of division or unleaven bread should be those who have been redeemed by Jesus Christ through faith as being one body, not the local church roll. Just an off the wall question, at your local church, how many members are on your roll, and how many attend, support, and participate in the church's ministries on a regular basis? If it is not 100%, and you believe in closed communion, why are those who do not join in church life, still on the rolls? If your church has strict church discipline and keeps the rolls clean, you would at least have a better argument.

 

[Dr. Walter]

We do practice strict discipline and therefore we do keep our rolls clean. We have an automatic policy that if a member misses for six straight months they are automatically placed under church discipline. So we do not have to deal with obvious and open and defiant participants because they have already been dealt with previous to the Lord's Supper. In addition, if there is questionable evidence of an open problem we do not observe the Lord's Supper until there is no obvious questionable evidence that would prevent it.

The Roman Catholic chuch and the cambellites believe in the Trinity too. The Mormons believe in immersion for baptism. That kind of reasoning would lead to giving everything up due to what others either believe or don't believe. I made my arguments based upon what the scriptures explicitly state not what others may or may not practice.

It is not the "manner" but the CONDITION that is the problem in I Cor. 11:18-20 although the CONDITION leads to the wrong manner as in I Cor. 11:21-22. They had a CONDITION of open DISUNITY.

The element in the cup applies to all the elect and is the symbol of the "new covenant" redemption. However, the "unleavened" bread is a symbol of sanctified preparation to observe the Supper as a "new lump" which involves removal of "commonly reported" members leavened in those things listed in 1 Cor.5:11 as well as schisms and thus the spiritual preparation in advance of the Supper including personal holiness, spirit of unity as one body in Christ.

Yes, we can take the heat out of the discussion. Just remember who threw the first lob. I fail to understand why you keep bringing up the universal church. It has nothing to do with open or closed communion. The decision of the local church has to do with the administration of the Lord's Supper. I never brought up the Judas argument. I commented that those who did in this thread did not make the case for either side.

As far as the church roll goes, I do not know for 100% certainty that the members on any roll who have not been to the church in years except on Christmas, Easter, or times of trouble are lost. I cannot know for sure if those members who never give of time, talents or money are lost. I cannot know for sure those members do not show one sign of regeneration are lost or not. However, I can make a very reasonable guess with my finite mind. To give this known behavior the benefit of the doubt and allow participation, then turn right around and question the right of someone who comes to worship your local church on any given Sunday of the Lord's Supper who is not a member is the height of worldly thinking.

This way of looking at things in no way takes away the right of each local church to choose. Locally, we have churches in three camps, open, closed and close.

Does it not bother you that churches like the Catholic, Church of Christ, and Mormon practice closed communion? That is bells and whistles going off right there.

I do agree with your point in 1 Cor 11:18-20, it was the manner in which they were taking the Lord's Supper.

Maybe another interpretation of division or unleaven bread should be those who have been redeemed by Jesus Christ through faith as being one body, not the local church roll. Just an off the wall question, at your local church, how many members are on your roll, and how many attend, support, and participate in the church's ministries on a regular basis? If it is not 100%, and you believe in closed communion, why are those who do not join in church life, still on the rolls? If your church has strict church discipline and keeps the rolls clean, you would at least have a better argument.

 

[saturneptune]

We do practice strict discipline and therefore we do keep our rolls clean. We have an automatic policy that if a member misses for six straight months they are automatically placed under church discipline. So we do not have to deal with obvious and open and defiant participants because they have already been dealt with previous to the Lord's Supper. In addition, if there is questionable evidence of an open problem we do not observe the Lord's Supper until there is no obvious questionable evidence that would prevent it.

The Roman Catholic chuch and the cambellites believe in the Trinity too. The Mormons believe in immersion for baptism. That kind of reasoning would lead to giving everything up due to what others either believe or don't believe. I made my arguments based upon what the scriptures explicitly state not what others may or may not practice.

It is not the "manner" but the CONDITION that is the problem in I Cor. 11:18-20 although the CONDITION leads to the wrong manner as in I Cor. 11:21-22. They had a CONDITION of open DISUNITY.

The element in the cup applies to all the elect and is the symbol of the "new covenant" redemption. However, the "unleavened" bread is a symbol of sanctified preparation to observe the Supper as a "new lump" which involves removal of "commonly reported" members leavened in those things listed in 1 Cor.5:11 as well as schisms and thus the spiritual preparation in advance of the Supper including personal holiness, spirit of unity as one body in Christ.

To focus on the man in 1 Cor 5:11, the Bible is talking about a church member for sure. Paul tells us in those verses not to judge those outside the church. So do you believe this man was saved since he was a church member? The list of sins is not limited to sexual immorality (which we put way up there on the scale of sins), but also lists those who covet, idolators, reveliers, drunkards, and extortioners. No doubt that is not a complete list, and should also be concerned in our local congregations with the resident gossip. The verse clearly states not to even eat with such a man. Are not we doing the opposite (and your church may be the exception) when we allow the Lord's Supper to be given to such a church member?

You have some of the best arguments I have seen from 1 Cor. The phrase "commonly reported" is an interesting concept. Would "commonly reported" be sufficient information to make the situation known to the church? Or is more proof needed before a local congregation would deny a member the Lord's Supper? Again, to emphasize, churches must take the entire list into consideration when denying the Lord's Supper for revealed sin.

Chapter 11 is also known or revealed sin. It is quite obvious greed is the sin here, and those participating were quite award of what they were doing.

Getting back to Judas, yes he could have taken the Lord's Supper following your post, because it was not revealed sin, but for what purpose? Why would someone even bother? I do not think the church member described about that has totally forsaken support of the church for eons can be described as a person of unrevealed sin.

 

[Dr. Walter]

To focus on the man in 1 Cor 5:11, the Bible is talking about a church member for sure. Paul tells us in those verses not to judge those outside the church. So do you believe this man was saved since he was a church member? The list of sins is not limited to sexual immorality (which we put way up there on the scale of sins), but also lists those who covet, idolators, reveliers, drunkards, and extortioners. No doubt that is not a complete list, and should also be concerned in our local congregations with the resident gossip. The verse clearly states not to even eat with such a man. Are not we doing the opposite (and your church may be the exception) when we allow the Lord's Supper to be given to such a church member?

You have some of the best arguments I have seen from 1 Cor. The phrase "commonly reported" is an interesting concept. Would "commonly reported" be sufficient information to make the situation known to the church? Or is more proof needed before a local congregation would deny a member the Lord's Supper? Again, to emphasize, churches must take the entire list into consideration when denying the Lord's Supper for revealed sin.

Chapter 11 is also known or revealed sin. It is quite obvious greed is the sin here, and those participating were quite award of what they were doing.

Getting back to Judas, yes he could have taken the Lord's Supper following your post, because it was not revealed sin, but for what purpose? Why would someone even bother? I do not think the church member described about that has totally forsaken support of the church for eons can be described as a person of unrevealed sin.

I never assume that because a person is a church member they are saved. However, we never accept anyone into the church that does not profess salvationa and therefore we treat them as such unless there is sufficient evidence to think otherwise. If there is sufficient evidence to think otherwise, it is usually manifested sooner or later in wrong behavior and/or wrong beliefs and then it is subject for disciplinary processes to begin.

I believe the words "not to eat" with such a one have direct contextual reference to the Lord's Supper (vv. 7-8 - "let us keep the feast").

I think "commonly reported" simply means it is made sufficiently obvious to more than church members but to the world that interacts with that person. The public testimony of Christ's church is on the line in the public arena so that the lost world has sufficient reason to scoff at the profession of the church in the community.

I am sorry but I don't quite follow your last argument about Judas. Perhaps you can clarify your point.

 

[saturneptune]

I am sorry but I don't quite follow your last argument about Judas. Perhaps you can clarify your point.

I am not making my point well about Judas. Others tried to use Judas as an argument either for or against closed communion. I do not think Judas or his conduct at the Last Supper is a good point to make for either side. In other words, I think we can both state our position quite well without using Judas.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I am not making my point well about Judas. Others tried to use Judas as an argument either for or against closed communion. I do not think Judas or his conduct at the Last Supper is a good point to make for either side. In other words, I think we can both state our position quite well without using Judas.

I fully agree with your point!

 

[saturneptune]

How does your church announce communion to have the visitors leave before the Lord's Supper is administered?

 

[Dr. Walter]

How does your church announce communion to have the visitors leave before the Lord's Supper is administered?

We have done it a number of ways. I announce the week before that we will have the Lord's Supper after services when all visitors have left. Sometimes I have simply given a short explanation to our visitors that has a two fold aim (1) make it clear that we do not want to offend them; (2) explain that we believe it is a church ordinance designed for the maintenance of church membership. We have literature dealing with the issue that we make available for anyone who really wants to know why we practice it the way we do.

 

[saturneptune]

We have done it a number of ways. I announce the week before that we will have the Lord's Supper after services when all visitors have left. Sometimes I have simply given a short explanation to our visitors that has a two fold aim (1) make it clear that we do not want to offend them; (2) explain that we believe it is a church ordinance designed for the maintenance of church membership. We have literature dealing with the issue that we make available for anyone who really wants to know why we practice it the way we do.

Your method seems very civil. Aside from the debate between open and closed, the most damage from closed communion that I have observed seems to come right at that point in time, how the pastor handles the visitors. If the situation is handled in a clumsy or what appears to be an arrogant manner, lots of damage can be done.

I must admit you have thought this out very well.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Your method seems very civil. Aside from the debate between open and closed, the most damage from closed communion that I have observed seems to come right at that point in time, how the pastor handles the visitors. If the situation is handled in a clumsy or what appears to be an arrogant manner, lots of damage can be done.

I must admit you have thought this out very well.

I agree with you that the presentation is the key. The same can be said of baptism when a believer comes to your church for membership but his baptism is not valid due to an improper administrator or mode. The way this is handled can do a lot of damage or be very instructive and helpful.

 

[dcorbett]

Do you think that people must join your church to go to heaven? I don't think you are saying that. But am just wanting to be clear.

No one here is talking about an open communion where anyone - saved or unsaved - can partake. I believe in close communion but i warn people who are unsaved they should not partake.

No, you have to accept God's grace (salvation through Christ's blood) through faith to go to Heaven.

I believe that Pastor uses this as yet another way to introduce the message to those who either don't know what we are doing, or they cannot do what we are doing because they don't believe like we do.

 

[Tom Butler]

No one here is talking about an open communion where anyone - saved or unsaved - can partake. I believe in close communion but i warn people who are unsaved they should not partake.

I have a different definition of open communion. I define it as allowing any professing Christian to participate.

That's a pretty wide tent, which includes the baptismal regeneration folks, the works salvation folks, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Do we really want that?

 

[Dr. Walter]

I have a different definition of open communion. I define it as allowing any professing Christian to participate.

That's a pretty wide tent, which includes the baptismal regeneration folks, the works salvation folks, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Do we really want that?

Open communion allows anyone present to partake if they feel they qualify regardless of their spiritual state, life, or denominational affiliation or beleif and practices.

 

[John Toppass]

I have a different definition of open communion. I define it as allowing any professing Christian to participate.

That's a pretty wide tent, which includes the baptismal regeneration folks, the works salvation folks, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Do we really want that?

I maybe mistaken but, I thought Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses were not allowed to attend other churches much less participate in the ordinances.

 

[saturneptune]

I maybe mistaken but, I thought Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses were not allowed to attend other churches much less participate in the ordinances.

Mormons have closed communion. Not sure about JWs. Neither sect qualifies as a Christian church, local or otherwise.

 

[Tom Butler]

I maybe mistaken but, I thought Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses were not allowed to attend other churches much less participate in the ordinances.

You're probably right, but my point is that with open communion, the church never asks any questions of any visitor. It simply abdicates its responsibility to guard the ordinances. It would have no recourse but to allow the open fornicator in I Corinthians 5 to participate.