Featured Communion

Other.
Open for born again and baptized ( immersed) believers.

 

Born again and Baptized.

 

I was able to edit my post to "other", thank you.

 

“Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you are disqualified.” 2 Corinthians 13:5.

I would use this reference as a point to encourage all in the faith to seek their own heart as to their standing before God and partake as to their own test results.

I don’t find any indication that the early church had any other restrictions, but to take the elements in a sober, somber, and silently reflection of the hope of His soon return.

To borrow a Jewish saying of hope and longing remembrance , “Next time with Him.” (Though their hope is “in Jerusalem”)

 

Let it be open. The Lord can protect His table.

God is sovereign...all the time.

 

Bible gives only 2 requirements, person must be saved, and not walking in rebellion towards God!

 

I always thought/was taught that Closed communion always involved a born again, baptized member. Our church will not allow an individual to participate in our observance of the Lord's Supper unless they have scriptural baptism (Baptist only) and are a member of our church. We believe it is the only way to be covenantly joined together so that the body of Christ may keep covenant with Christ and therefore the Father. We believe the ordinance of baptism is only performed on a person repenting and desiring to be in covenant position with our body of believers.

Yeshua1 mentions a person not walking in rebellion against God. How can a church know the status of someone walking in off the street on the evening you are observing the Lord's supper and trying to participate? How can the church know whether that person is under sanctions by another body if the observance is open. This can usually only and best be known by the local assembly of which a person is a member. Older Baptist churches would not try to override the actions of another Baptist body if they viewed their action as scriptural

I Cor 5:11, But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such a one NOT TO EAT. The term brother restricts its meaning to a member of a body of Christ. Since Paul specifies that it is a man that is called a brother, then that church would know whether he were a member on not. I remember as a very small child, who knew little of the sacrifice of Christ for his people, taking of the grape juice being passed around in the observance at a Baptist church. I was not a member. No one spoke to me about my status or condition with the Lord. That should never have happened.

The church is to strive to be of one mind and one accord. What of someone who holds to false doctrine that is contrary to the doctrine of that body. Would you and your church eat with that person? How would you know what they believed unless they made their beliefs know to the body of which they were a member?

KenH said that God is sovereign all the time. That is true. And he uses his churches to carry our his sovereignity by their keeping his commandments. The Lord's supper is one.

 

Your example is valid provided the church has knowledge of these openly sinful ways; however, it is not the church’s responsibility to withhold the elements without such knowledge.

Should there be such knowledge, then the one who is with sin should be under church discipline, anyway.


When a church practices closed communion, they very well may be excluding a very angelic being from participating. For we do entertain such beings unawares.

 

Aged man said, "Your example is valid provided the church has knowledge of these openly sinful ways; however, it is not the church’s responsibility to withhold the elements without such knowledge.

Should there be such knowledge, then the one who is with sin should be under church discipline, anyway.

When a church practices closed communion, they very well may be excluding a very angelic being from participating. For we do entertain such beings unawares."

I must ask you, why would a church withhold the elements without knowledge in the first place. Withholding the elements is a form of church discipline.

I find no example in the scriptures of a church being visited by an angel and taking the Lord's supper.. Hebrews 13:2 states, "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers; for thereby some have entertained angels unawares". The Lord's supper would not be considered entertainment but an ordinance given to a local assembly with certain restrictions or form of administration." The angels have knowledge of those restrictions and not try to participate. The blood of Christ was not shed for these angels. These angels would have not fallen with Satan and would have no sin. They have no right to the ordinanace. It is given to his people to bring them to remembrance of the giving of the new covenant by the shedding of his blood and sacrifice of his body.

 

Perhaps the word “entertain” strangers as we think of amusing or some form of amusement (putting on a show) is for our day understood as “welcoming” and “befriending.”

Perhaps this will help in not only your, but the readers’ understanding as to the application.

To “show hospitality towards” (philoxenia) the stranger is as one may welcome a guest to dinner. The actual word also brings in the connotation of loving friendship. Welcome the stranger with brotherly love and care.

The second use of the word (entertain), pertaining to treatment of angels, in the verse (xenizó) has the inclusion of being and abiding as if lodging in your home. That is giving the stranger what you give yourself as if they are a guest in your own home.

Therefore, the Hebrews passage does stand the test of application to communion; for what better does communion stand for than both reflection of that done by the Lord Jesus Christ, and that hope (assurance) found the the promise of the reunion meal in heaven. And that wonderful promise of the New “place prepared”?


As always, if I have missed the intent of the original language, I urge and thank others to kindly correct me in my fumbling.

 

Strange that we would be excluded from Communion the very ones now saved by the Lord Jesus, is not the Body of Christ all of the saved, not just those in baptist churches?
Also, the biblical mandate is that the person receiving communion not to be in unrepentant sinning....

 

I know of no mandate though that the person receiving must be a Baptist!

 

Bro.Aged Man, I agree with your application of entertain to a point. We see the example of angels being entertained by both Abraham and Lot. But just because they fed and housed them doesn't mean we can stretched it to allowing anyone to observe the Lord's supper with you.

My cousin came to visit with me last week. I spoke to him about Christ and he said he was not religious but did believe in God. James 2:19 says, "Thou believest there is one God, thou doest well, the devils also believe and tremble." Do you think I should have invited him to observe the Lord's supper with us? The same can be applied to Christ. Since Christ said in John 10:30, "I and my Father are one," then we can also say Thou believe there is one Christ, thou does well, the devils also believe and tremble."

Again, show me in the scriptures where any angel ever observed the Passover or the Lord's supper. Again, Christ did not die for the angels. The scriptures do say in Eph. 5:25, "Husbands love your wifes even as Christ also loved the church, and GAVE HIMSELF FOR IT." Christ did not tell the angels, I Cor 11:25, After the same manner also he took the cup, when he supped saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me". Where was this ever commanded the angels. The angels did not need the new covenant as a means of being restored in Christ. These particular angels had never fallen." The command to do it in remembrance of Christ was because Jer 2:32 says ..."my people have forgotten me days without number". It is a command given exclusively to the body of Christ.

 

I never contended that Christ died but for the World (John 3). Nor do I argue against your thinking of the purpose of the atonement of Christ.

However, I don’t see angels, boy you?

We are told to not neglect but rather are to care for strangers because some are angels, is that not right?

Then when it comes to communion, would it not be better to offer to all with the admonition already restated in my earlier post in this thread, then to demonstrate a lack of hospitality even to angels who sit as strangers amongst the assembly?

If believers are unaware the strangers are angels, then it seems to me this disagreement is rather pointless.

Is it not better to show hospitality to all strangers, even in this manner, with the appropriate warnings as already posted?

 

Bro Yeshua 1, I do not know how much you have studied Baptist history but we know that the Baptists and AnaBaptists were slaughter by the catholics for their simply refusing to sprinkle their children. Until Vatican II in 1965 I believe, the catholics held that unless you were a catholic, you were going to hell. Do you think they offered their communion to the Baptists? I believe the vast majority still hold they are the true church. Why would you want to put your seal of approval on them when they would condemn you to hell?

I will use this as an example. If you have children, and if you would attend service with the Presbyterians, would you allow them to sprinkle your children and consider it valid? History tells us even the Presbyterians could not tell if they themselves were a valid church or not. At one of their synods, they declared that the catholic priests were not of God therefore the catholics were not a church. They finally realized that if the catholics were not a church, then the Presbyterians were not a church because they came out of the catholics. This was a matter they debated at great length but to my knowledge, never made a decision about. If they can't decide if their own baptism is valid, would you accept it? I can get more specific on this matter if you would like but I am out of town and do not have many of my references with me.

There are those who foolishly say that John's baptism was not Christian baptism. If it were not then why would Christ walk 40 miles to be baptised by him if Christ was going to end up with an invalid baptism. When John protested Christ told him, Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh US to fulfill all righteousness." the scriptures tell us that a bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit/fullfil all righteousness. Therefore John's baptism was Christian baptism or Christ could not have said to John what he did. The validity of baptism is extremely important because it determines who has a right to the table of the Lord.

To the other brethren who say they believe a requirement of attendance at the Lord's supper is to be born again and baptised, would you accept a catholic or presbyterian who have only been sprinkled. Bro Yeshua1, do you believe they are excluding the saved?

Just because someone says I am a Christian does not make them a Christian. Jim Jones who slaughtered over 800 people convinced his follower he was and probably believed so himself. What about the scriptures that talk about false Christs, false prophets, false brethren? Should we readily admit them to the ordinance when we don't know if they are or not? By their fruits/doctrines ye shall know them.

 

Bro Aged Man, please consider by post to Bro Yeshua 1 and a reply also to you.

 

Bro Yeshua 1, again I ask, how would you know whether a stranger from off the street is in rebellion against God. It is not uncommon for Baptists, when excluded, to go join another Baptish church and many are readily accepted because the church they go to does not bother to question or check.

Bro Aged Man, how do you know that the stranger in your midst is not one of these people under discipline and not an angel? You have the best idea if they are a member of your church rather than defiling the ordinance by opening it wide open.

I do agree we are to show great hospitality to visitors to the church, whether members or not.