Featured Communion

In my opinion Communion should not be restricted simply because no one can see another man's heart. It wasn't restricted at the first communion because even Judas took part in it. Even though Christ could see Judas's heart, and knew Judas was a traitor. I chose other simply because to me it would be wrong for someone to step up and tell anyone NO they should not be allowed. While it may seem to be just and right to restrict but on who's authority. Men can claim they have the authority to do so but the truth is God is the only one with this authority. His restriction is the fact those who take communion with out being just enough to do so will pay for it by sickness or even death much earlier than expected.
Most good pastors will mention this before communion even begins.
Personally I always take a good look at my life before i take it and ask forgiveness of all sins I may have committed first. Remembering we all sin sometimes and forget about it so I ask for forgiveness for all sins.
MB

 

Perhaps you would enjoy partaking of the Lords Supper with the Corinthians, who were dying because of improperly partaking in the supper.

 

Bro Balderdash said "Balderdash. Jesus certainly wasn't baptized because He had sins to repent of, nor was Jesus baptized in response to God having regenerated Him and given Him a new heart to replace a heart of stone as Christians have since Pentecost after His crucifixion."

Where do you find that I said anything contrary to the effect of what your said above or implied that I was even saying that?

Christ was bringing in the kingdom of God in the form of the New Covenant. Circumcision, the ordinance by which the Israelite was put into covenant position with God in the Old Covenant would be replace with the ordinance of baptism.

Christ, being the head of the church, would receive the ordinance that he commanded the church to perform.

He did not need to be baptised in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit because "in Him dwelt the fullness of the godhead bodily"' He was already full of the knowledge of the godhead.

 

Bro Silverhair-
The Holy Spirit is given to the church and would never lead it or an individual to do that which is contrary to the scriptures. A individual that has the life of Christ, and is not a member of the church would never be lead OF THE SPIRIT to take the Lord's Supper. It is their own ignorance of the scriptures that causes it.

Bro MB-
No one is questioning Judas partaking in the observance. Christ knew he would betray him but it was NOT REVEALED to the other apostles IN THE BODY because they would have protested and tried to stop Judas and prevent the crucifixion which had to happen as foretold by the scriptures.

Everyone who came out of Egypt had participated in the Passover, the carnal included. It was called a mixed multitude. However many fell in the wilderness because of their rebelliousness. The same reason that Yeshua1 gives as a reason to not be allowed to observe the Lord's Supper. We see the same parallel to the warning to self examine in the new testament church. I Cor 11:29 says, "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation unto himself, NOT DISCERNING the Lord's body. 11`:30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you and many sleep."

 

The Lord is so gracious towards those who take wrongly communion, such as when the mass is done every sunday, as many of them would be dead if still operating as he did in Acts!

 

Failed to finish before posting-
The restriction on the observance of the Lord's supper is given to THE CHURCH by the authority of the godhead.

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 a idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such a one not to eat." Since Paul say "if any man be" it is obvious that there is KNOWN SIN among the members. There is leprosy IN THE CAMP. The old testament gave clear instruction on how this matter was to be handled. This is the same thing Paul is talking about in the above verse. How can the command to "no with such a one not to eat" be so casually be denied and ignored?

But some of you seem to say that the church has no authority to deal with these matters. Paul rebukes the church at Corinth for not dealing with it when a man THAT IS CALLED A BROTHER was found to have had his father's wife. They were puffed up and were in need of correction. I Cor 6:5 says, I speak to your shame. Is it so that there is not a wise man among you? Not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?

The phrase "with such a one not to eat" give a clear mandate/command TO THE CHURCH to restrict the Lord's supper to KNOWN unworthy members, whether in fleshly issues or in doctrine. Is there anyone among you on this board with whom would not eat? Our church is not in fellowship with the catholics. Why would we allow them to observe communion (fellowship) with us?

Concerning hidden sins, Paul's instruction is to the members or THE CHURCH at Corinth (I Cor 1:2). Something the church does not know cannot be acted on and the church is not held responsible until the sin is known.

Bro Yeshua1-
The mass of the catholics is not valid nor are they. Yes the Lord does continue to discipline HIS people as in the past. The scriptures make it clear that if you are not chastised, you are a bastard and not a son.

 

Bro KenH-

I am glad you took the joke well. By the way, is that you?

 

The matters of openly sinful members in the church ougth to be dealt with as such. As for the Lord's remembrance the instruction being, ". . . But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. . . ."

 

From one of the best comedy TV series ever - "The Office".

 

Bro KenH,

Sorry, I don't watch TV that much

 

I personally tend to be pragmatic. If I want to attend a local assembly and they practice closed communion I have a decision to make, either join or find another assembly or not participate in communion.

Having said that I think Brother Salty is more interested in opinions and would like Biblical arguments either way.

^^^ this is instructive in several aspects. We can assume that the 11 Apostles were baptized prior to the last supper but the gospels don't as far as I know state that they were baptized members of a local fellowship and not in any kind of rebellion with Christ, which is hard to reconcile with Peter and his denials, to take part in a ceremony that is intended to remember Jesus and His soon to be crucifixion and resurrection, not to weed out sinners in the privacy of the local church.

More important to me at least is the eschatological/theological argument that The New Covenant is a church concern. The 11 Apostles in the upper room were Jews, the Passover they were celebrating was a Jewish rite to remember the Exodus and it is only a reformed belief that The New Covenant is a church concern which in my mind is on a par with catholic teaching that communion is closed to any except catholics and somehow is a means of Gods grace.

Now not intending to offend anyone but Brother unprofitable makes the inference that Jehovah would not have been well pleased with Jesus if He had not been baptized which is at odds the Biblical claim that "All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made" John 1:3. Reformed Covenant theology teaches (without Biblical support IMO) that God the Father made a deal with God the Son (Covenant of Redemption) which would have to be nullified if Jesus had not been baptized or the Covenant was in forbearance pending baptism.

The prophet Ezekiel was informed that if he were to give the message of judgement to the Israelites and they ignore it, the Israelites would be liable for judgement but the prophet not held responsible. If on the other hand the prophet withholds the message, both the prophet and the wicked Israelites were held responsible Ezekiel 3:17-21

This sets up in my equally valid opinion that Jehovah here offers up a precept on how the mind of God works. It also would be valid to assume that if the Church is "spiritual Israel" then the Church is obligated to warn the sinner that they are responsible but as long as they do the warning they are not on the hook. This of course is subject to 1 Corinthians ch 5 when the individual is Biblically mandated for removal from the assembly but in that case the issue of communion is a non-issue because the individual is not in attendance.

 

Sorry Bro KenH. I don't watch that much tv,

 

Bro 37818-
I agree that the church must deal with openly sinful members. This is also evidenced by Mt 18:15-20. As for the Lord's remembrance, this is instructed to members in the church IN GOOD STANDING. Both examples are concerning those in the church. Remember the instruction you quoted is in a letter written "unto the church of God which is at Corinth."

 

It would appear we somewhat agree on the foundation, but differ on the application. If it is absolute that the decision lies solely upon the one participating, then the assembly is subject to commune with both unbelievers and excluded members -- even atheists and satanists, should they so desire. (The latter scenario being reasonably unlikely, but they nevertheless could not be excluded on the basis making that person the final arbiter of their partaking.)

 

Bro Thomas15-

The first church was the church at Jerusalem so I don't know how the apostles could have possibly been members of another church. They were members of that church which Christ was bringing forth as the body of Christ (Mt 16:18). He said in Jn 15:16 "I have chosen you and ordained you (work of Christ bringing forth the kingdom body) that ye should go (forth)(Mt 28:19-20) and bring forth fruit.

Neither do I question them being baptised. John the Baptist was "preparing a people for the Lord" and this is evidenced by Mt 2:5 which says, then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the regions round about Jordan. 6- And WERE baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. This was a great multitude being baptised. The apostles were in the people being prepared for the Lord therefore they were baptized. After they are prepared by baptism (to bring them into a land flowing with milk and honey of the New Covenant) a certain number of them were chosen and ordained. Do you know of any being ordained without being baptized. Not among the Baptists I know.

Apparently I was not clear on the matter of Christ's baptism. He said that he came to do the will of the Father. (John 6:38) We must then conclude by Christ walking 40 miles to be baptised that it most assuredly was the will of the Father. Since to do the will of the Father was the bread of Christ there was no way that Christ would not accomplish it for it was part of bringing in the new covenant. I had never heard of the reformed doctrine concerning baptism. The Son will ALWAYS accomplish the will of the Father. The church is also charged to do the will of bringing in the kingdom of God. As Christ told his apostles in Jn 14:15, If ye love mel, keep my commandments." Do my will for it is the will of the Father.

We do not believe baptism is a means of God's grace. It will not save you because we see in Jude that certain men crept in unawares who were before ordained to this condemnation. The fact that they are described as spot in your feasts shows that they had baptism and were church members. If baptism could have saved, it would have saved them.

Lastly, I am in no way offended by your reply. Thank you for taking the time post you beliefs.

I

 

Bro Salty,
The first church at Jerusalem, in form and function closest resembles a Baptist church and it should be the effort and desire of each Baptist church to become like unto. Since Christ is the express image of the Father, and we are to be comformed to his express image then that knowledge is given to a true church that it may teach the form of the house Eze 43:11). This is validated by Eph 3:10...that it might be known by the CHURCH, the manifold wisdom (will or form of the house/church) of God." Again, the Baptists are the closest I can find to the church at Jerusalem".

Also you said we said we have to know the "spiritual" condition of church members. Either I was not clear or you misread my statements. The church, with the exception of those in open rebellion, cannot/may not know the relation of A MEMBER with the Father. A member will often show you their spiritual condition with the word of their own mouth in the way they handle the word of God. That in itself DOES NOT exclude them from taking the Lord's supper. It may be a new member or one on the milk and the church must be patient and longsuffering with them until they come to a greater understanding not only of Christ and the godhead but the church itself. As long as that member does not go into gross error/heresy and is willing to sit and learn, the church is to work with them, as a mother would her children, to grow as children in Christ. That would include teaching them concerning the ordinance and observation of the Lord's supper. They would continue to observe it with the other members.
Just because a church has closed communion, that does not prevent them from supporting a missionary in like faith and practice. That is not the observing the Lord's supper. Apples to oranges. Paul definitely taught closed communion but the thanked the churches and individual members for their support. (I Cor 16:2, 2 Tim 1:16, Phil 4:5)

Bro Aged Man-
Self examination is a directive given to those who are already church members. And if you are able to do that in ten minutes of silence before the service you have a lot less sins than I do. That is why it is not possible for a member or especially someone walking in off the street to able to examine themselves in so short a time.