A Case for a Closed Communion

Mima, I have wondered the same thing--why Jesus did not wait until Judas had left instead of including him in the Passover meal.

Maybe some of our fellow posters can shed some light on your question. One thought comes to mind, and this is my own speculation, of course. This was the Passover meal. Jesus told his disciples that from now on they were to observe this meal in remembrance of him, not the incident in Egypt where the angel of death passed over the homes of those who had blood on the doorposts. They were henceforth to consider the wine as symbolic of his blood, and the bread to be symbolic of his broken body. Thus it is possible that this might permit Judas to partake of the Passover meal, but not the future Lord's Supper. Again, just speculation here, and I plead for any correction.

One other point. Notice that Jesus did not gather a large crowd of believers for this event, but restricted it to his closest disciples--the men who were the material of the first church, established during his ministry.

Other believers were not invited.

 

The point about Judas is well taken. Jesus did not exclude him from the Lord's supper.

Personally, I don't think there's a case for a closed communion. So what if an unbeliever partakes? Does that make him any more condemned than he already is? I'd be more concerned about the believers in the church, that they are partaking with discernment. Anything an unbeliever does is outside of our responsibility.

 

No women either, if that means anything?

 

BPT,
While your points are interesting, that fail on all levels to make a case for closed communion. You said that you acknowledge the authority of the local church, but that it is obligated to vote the way YOU think it should be, to fit your model.

You made the point that either your church or Baptists in general are the only legitimate New Testement church. However, Jarthur, one of the best versed historians on this board, and your best supporter when you were doing your semi-Calvinsitic threads, told you flat out that Baptists are part of the Protestant group. You failed to answer my question as to which of these denominations were heretical.

You made the point you wanted to seperate the denominations of Chruch of Christ, Catholic, Mormon etc from the discussion. I can see why. Why would anyone who believes the Bible want to conduct communion closed like they do?

Most of all, you failed to Biblically answer the central question as to what gives man, any man the authority to include people in the Lords supper that have no witness except they are not saved, and exclude those who have a good witness?

You failed to establish a nexus between discipline and the Lords Supper. The state of church discipline and church rolls across America are testimony to that.

Failure to supply and Biblical reference to support closed communion except your interpretation as to how the early church is run is not a point. Neither is the fact that Jesus gave the last supper to the disciples only, and one post said, exclude women?

 

I really tried to stay out of this one but we do practice closed communion.

1 Corinthians, chapter 5
7": Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

"8": 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.

"9": I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

"10": Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

"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 idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

"12": For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

I take this to be communion, how about the rest of you?

 

Oh, come on. Now you're just being silly in order to defend your position.

 

It certainly seems odd that since the closed communioners brought up the idea of Jesus serving to disciples only at the last supper to support closed communion, then the monkey wrench of Judas gets thrown in (but he was on the church roll), then no women, boy look at them back up. Now, we have a new explanation for why women were not served. This gets more comical with each passing post.

 

Our only reason for closed communion is because we don't participate in other churches outside of those who we correspond with. Its not that we don't believe they are the children of God but we just don't practice with others. We will hold up a communion if someone feels like they want to partake and join our church we will baptize them and then proceed with the communion. Maybe its this area I don't know but they don't participate with us either. Someone from Michigan came here one time and lived about a year and then wrote about us. He said we kept to ourselves until someone died and then we all came to the need of that person. I think He hit the nail on the head. We do tend to keep to our own faith until someone is in need. They have their services and we have ours. It has never been a problem in this area at all. I have never had to turn anyone away for they all know that we have a closed communion. Some come to watch us but always move to the back until communion is over. It is no disrespect to anyone. I never go to anyone else's communion. I take it as a private thing for that church.

 

I don't think he's referring to LS there necessarily. Eating was a very intimate act in NT times (Much like it is in the South).

I practice close communion because I believe that's what the Scripture teaches, but I allow that closed communion is viable and have no problem with churches that practice it.

 

Sorry Tom but have to disagree for Jesus sat down and eat with sinners so doubt if it meant just eating. I have always felt it to mean the LS but I could be wrong. Just can't see how it could possibly mean to naturally eat for I am sure they had to do that all the time same as we. I would feel rather funny having to get up at a family picnic and leave. Also, at our church dinners everyone is welcome.

 

BPT
... Those verses in Matthew to which you keep referring have nothing to do with the Lords Supper.

...

Your posts are the same old rehash of what you have said before, still failing to give any Scriptural reference to support closed communion, except for your opinion.

My reading comprehension is quite good, your posts are not. You fail to answer the question, what gives you, or anyone else the right from the Bible to exclude people who have a good witness for Christ and include people who are obviously lost. You dont have a clue.

As far as the list of denominations, I made the first list. You made a second vague list something to do with churches that allow homosexual behavior. You failed to answer the question. Tell us which denominations you consider heretical.

You cannot with any honesty say that Baptist church rolls across America and discipline within Baptist churches across America even approach a level appropriate for closed communion if one accepts the primise of the local church.

One poster said yes, it is the local church, and that they have the right to vote open. You said no they dont because its not my way.

The explanation of why women were not served at the last supper but should get the Lords Supper now is so comical it is not worthy of comment.

...

If you read Brother Bobs posts in this thread, you will see a good solid argument for closed communion. I dont agree with them, but they are reasonable and in a Christian spirit.

 

You seem to get two different issues mixed up. Those outside the church, which is the case in the novel you posted above, are outside for various church offenses, and deserve church discipline. Part of that is not being able to partake of the Lord's Supper. What does that have to do with those who are allowed to.

Instead of answering the question, "which Protestant denominations do you consider heretical", you have gone off the deep end and suggested that we not allow Hindus, and Muslims and the like? Dont you honestly think that is a ridiculous idea? I have never had one of those come in to our church for communion, and why would they want to?

 

Nothing. I agree that some are mixing up these two issues.

 

Agree with you Pastor as to two saviors as Christ Jesus is the Son of God, but Jesus did tell us He only came for His own, and was crucified as Jesus the man/God born of woman, and of the promises of the "covenant" people. We no longer know Him of the flesh of just coming for His own. II Corinthians 5:16-18, "Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.
17. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
18. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation."


We know He changed in bodily form, and His dealings with men. I believe He was a newborn babe that wound-up on the Cross for our sins. Did He deal with His Apostles the same way after His crucifixion? God is still God, but He also became man, yet He does not change.

We know His essential character does not change, and we know our God is not a robot, or a static God. His purpose has never changed, and we also know our God of division separated Himself to become "flesh".