Believer’s Communion with Restrictions: Not Closed, Close, or Open--But Biblical

[Yeshua1]

Got some bible to support that?

Yes, 1 Cor 11 17-34!, as the Apostle states to us just christian partake, and those doing such in a God honoring lifestyle now!

 

[TCassidy]

Yes, 1 Cor 11 17-34!, as the Apostle states to us just christian partake, and those doing such in a God honoring lifestyle now!

Except that is not the point. Nobody has suggested unbelievers are welcome. The question is "Opened, Close, or Closed."

So far you have given ZERO scripture to support your opinion.

 

[Yeshua1]

Except that is not the point. Nobody has suggested unbelievers are welcome. The question is "Opened, Close, or Closed."

So far you have given ZERO scripture to support your opinion.

How are you using those terms?

 

[TCassidy]

Perhaps it would be good to have those supporting closed communion to give Scripture support for their view, just as the op did in support of that view.

I thought I did that in post #9.

The Lord's Supper symbolizes our Unity in walking together in obedience to Christ. 1 Cor 10:17.

Those who are not walking in obedience to Christ are told "not to eat" by the church leadership. 1 Cor 5:8.

 

[TCassidy]

How are you using those terms?

Scripture. The Bible. Chapter and verse. A quote. And if you would read the thread before responding with your unsupported opinions you would have read how I use the terms in post #9.

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree. In my opinion there are only two viable choices. Open and Closed.

"Close" is a misnomer. If a door is "almost closed" it is still open. It can be open a little or open a lot but it is still open.

Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 5:8 that it is our responsibility to refuse fellowship to those living in sin and that, in reference to the Lord's Supper, they are "not to eat."

As the Lord's Supper is a Unity Feast, to partake with someone we don't know, and allow them to set the criteria of whether or not they eat, is to allow an outside influence control our church and who we unite with in the Lord's Supper.

So we have two options. Open, allowing people we don't know determine who we unite with, or Closed, limiting participation to our own, known, church family.

The person who claims to be a real christian, and is not in rebellion, would he be allowed to partake then, even say visiting from another church?

 

[TCassidy]

The person who claims to be a real christian, and is not in rebellion, would he be allowed to partake then, even say visiting from another church?

Depends on the church. Each church makes its own decisions.

 

[Felipe Rios]

My problem with closed communion is that there is some fear factor of polluting the assembly, and or some outside the faith might bring rebuke to the assembly.

Perhaps it would be good to have those supporting closed communion to give Scripture support for their view, just as the op did in support of that view.

Like I stated in my first post, I think it comes down to how you view the "church." If the church is Universal, then open communion makes sense. If the church is Local, then open communion would not make sense.
Remember that the ordinance was given to the church. I believe that the church is local so therefore the local church is the one to carry out the Lord's Supper. Because each church is the local body of Christ, then only those who are members of that particular body can partake of that table. Since I am not a member of you church, I should not partake of your church's supper since I am not a member of that body.
Now, does scripture really teach this, or is this some doctrine that some Baptist churches teach? I believe it is scriptural and I'm going to try to attempt this:
1) Notice how when Jesus instituted His supper, it was done privately (closed). He did not call everyone who claimed to be a follower to come and partake. As a matter of fact, Judas was told to leave before He instituted it. Now, this first point may be weak since Christ was instituting this supper for the first time. But my point is that the idea of the Lord's Supper being private is NOT foreign to scripture.
2) 1 Corinthians 11 and 12 are vital for the Lord's Supper Doctrine and the Local Church Doctrine. I will start with chapter 12 and then address chapter 11.
In chapter 12, Paul is addressing the various gifts that God gave his churches. The Corinthian church was misusing some of their gifts and Paul needed to address their error. In verses 12-27 Paul addresses what the "church" is and how its supposed to function. In verse 12 Paul says, "For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ." The question then is: Is Paul speaking about a "universal" body of Christ? or is he speaking of a "local" body of Christ? I'm personally convinced that the answer is found in verse 27, "Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it." Notice that Paul tells the Corinthian Church that "they were" the body of Christ. That church in Corinth was the body of Christ. That means that each N.T church is a local body of Christ.
Notice how the body is supposed to be working together and each member is supposed to be pulling their part. How can you and I work together if I'm not a member of your body? How can I (the leg or the arm, etc) tell you (the eye or the ear, etc) what I'm doing if we belong to different churches? I think you get the point. Paul is teaching here that each "ekklesia" is the body of Christ built with members, each one with a purpose. This is part of the reason why the Lord's Supper is for "each" church alone to partake; not for just anyone to partake.
3) In 1 Cor.11:23-34 is where Paul addresses the Lord's Supper in more detail and how it should be done. According to verse 28 each individual member of that church needs to examine the purpose of why they are taking the Lord's Supper. If each member is to examine itself, that means that the church as a body should examine itself as well. If there are issues in the church, then its up to the church to decide on whether or not to carry out with this Supper. If I'm not a member of your church, how can I partake of your Supper if you don't know who I am?
Does the context determine if the Supper is for the local church only? Yes. Notice how verse 33 says that when the church comes together to partake of this Supper, they are to wait for one another. How can you wait for me if I'm a member of a different church on the other side of the world? The point is that this Supper is to be carried out by the members of that body alone. Any guests or members of others churches should not partake of that Supper. They should wait to partake it at their "ekklesia" they are a part of.
This is how I would explain that Communion is "closed" rather than "open."