A Case for a Closed Communion

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

Some in here appear to be bringing Jesus' teaching into this as if he does not want a closed communion, which may not be in keeping with what the overal NT teaches. Jesus is the Word not just only the red print. Therefore, I think it is clear that he calls for his church to be a distinct morally upright community of repentant believers. The NT teaching of church discipline calls for internal cohesion and conformity within the congregation through the practice of believers baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Therefore, church discipline is not only a mark of the true church, it was the means by which the church is to create and preserve a restored church body. The Anabaptist theologian I have studied argued that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are completely devoid of meaning “if fraternal admonition and the Christian Ban do not accompany them, admonition belonging to baptism as the Ban belongs to communion and fellowship.” Hubmaier believed that the Ban was tied to the Lord’s Supper through a communal pledge toward a changed life, made both at baptism and through the Lord’s Supper.

Hubmaier consistently held that admonition and the Ban were mandated by Christ for the edification and sanctification of the confessing church. Within the pre-Reformation church excommunication was justified through the Petrine doctrine of papal authority based on Matt 16:16. The medieval church directly related excommunication to the keys of the kingdom. According to Schlabach, “The Petrine doctrine of papal authority was built upon the power of the keys.” Hubmaier also attributed great significance to the confession of Peter, however, with an entirely different hermeneutic:

. . . as he then promised to her, Matt 16:16ff and 18:18, when he said to Peter. ‘You stony one, and on the rock, which you openly confess as you say fearlessly that I am the Christ, Son of the living God, I shall build my church, my gathering, my congregation, and the gates of hell cannot stand against her, and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. Verily I say to you: All that you shall bind on earth will be bound also in heaven, and what you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’(Hubmaier, “On the Christian Ban,” Pipkin and Yoder, 411–412.)

Hubmaier was careful to explain that despite the fact that Peter was initially addressed, the power of the keys was actually given to the church. “When Christ says, ‘To you,’ he signifies the unity of the church. But when he says, ‘You,’ he indicates the many men shall be gathered together in this unity of faith and Christian love.” Mabry observes, “The ‘you’ therefore, does not refer to Peter; but rather, to the whole church. The use of the singular ‘you’ (Dir) referred to the unity of the church, in the sense that all members constituted the one ‘you.’ When Christ used the ‘you’ in the plural sense (Jr), it meant for Hubmaier all of the many people who were to be in this unity.”

Hubmaier believed Christ had girded the church, and not Peter, with the power of the keys as a means of protecting and maintaining the church. Hubmaier suggests, “This same power and these keys Christ gave and commended to the church after his blessed resurrection, Matt 28:19; Mark 16:15f.” The power of the keys originally belonged to the Father. Through his incarnation, however, Christ exercised this power in his earthly ministry. After Christ’s resurrection and ascension, he entrusted the power of the keys to the church. Hubmaier recapitulates:

It is known and is evident that this authority is given to the Christian church and comes from Christ Jesus her spouse and bridegroom, as his heavenly Father has given the same to him, in heaven and on earth, and as Christ used the same in teaching and in deed, as he walked among us bodily. But when he was to ascend into heaven and to sit at the right hand of his almighty Father, no longer remaining bodily with us on earth, just then he hung this power and these keys at the side of his most beloved spouse and bride, Matt 28:20; Mark 16:19; John 20:23; Acts 1:9 (whom he had prepared, purified, and restored for himself with his precious crimson blood), and recommended and commanded to use the same faithfully according to his word. (Hubmaier, “On the Christian Ban,” Pipkin and Yoder, 411.)

In the context of Matthew 16, Hubmaier argued the “you” was to be understood as referring to the church. Therefore, the keys and the powers to bind and loose were given to the church as a whole rather than to the clergy or the pope, as with the historic church. Hubmaier derided the Petrine doctrine of papal authority:

If one were to introduce foreign glosses over clear words, the entire Bible would be overturned and confused and nothing upright or constant would remain therein. O God, protect us from such glossers! The old pope has until now used the same glosses for such words as head, church, keys, rock, spiritual, etc. whereby he has overturned all things. (Hubmaier, “Dialogue with Zwingli’s Baptism Book,” Pipkin and Yoder, 192.)

Despite the fact that Hubmaier rejected papal authority, Carl Sachsse found his position on the keys was closer to that of the medieval church than was even Zwinlgi’s. While Zwingli placed the authority to exercise the keys elsewhere, the authority to excommunicate within the medieval Catholic church was vested in the episcopal hierarchy. Schlabach maintains, “Both Luther and Zwingli related the power of the keys to the preaching of the Word of God. The Word had to bind and loose.”

Contrary to Zwingli and Luther, Hubmaier associated the keys with the practice of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Hubmaier maintained that Christ had given the keys “binding” and “loosing” to the church. Within this contextual framework Hubmaier began “On the Christian Ban” with a discussion of the concept of the keys in Matt 18:19, 20. The first key, binding, empowered the church to receive repentant sinners into the congregation through water baptism, and subsequently, by readmitting those previously under the Ban. The second key, loosing, primarily functioned through the Eucharist, where those who openly professed faith in Christ continually renewed their pledge first made at baptism to live according to the Rule of Christ. Subsequently, as the key to the purity of the church, the second key gave the congregation the authority to exclude obstinate sinners from the fellowship of the Lord’s Supper through the Ban. Schlabach suggests, “Hubmaier’s understanding of the first key eventually led him to his position on the second. That is, his teaching on believers’ baptism led him to emphasize the practice of the Ban.”

Having devoted a great deal of time and research into this matter I do not think there is a theologian to date who had a better handle on the biblical context of the Supper nor a better application in his own life and ministry, for Hubmaier, Doctor of Theology in the Roman Catholic church, who was converted to Baptist doctrine implemented a sweeping reform in the church in which he was pastor in Waldshut as a testament to the validity of his beliefs. He paid dearly for his beliefs as have many others like him who paid the ultimate price for following after Christ. So some that read this thread may think this is nothing more than a trivial debate. According to my perspective the issue of church discipline is as important an issue as any other that faces the contemporary church. Because if Hubmaier was correct that church discipline is necessary in order to function as church then we have an overwhelming number churches that are not worthy to bolster the name of Christ. Now ask yourself this question, is that a true statement or are the majority of churches which practice an open communion budding with visibly regenerate church members?

 

[ituttut]

The authority to baptize was given to the visible assembly in the Great Commission by Jesus himself. Paul, in I Cor 11:2, reminded the visible assembly at Corinth that the ordinances had been committed to it.

Amen to the "great commission" given by Jesus to His own people, for He said He came for them and not the heathen. To them He gave by His authority for them (Peter, James, John an the others) to spread the gospel of the Jew by faith justification, by the Grace of God to go into all the world preaching the CROSS?? No, the "great commission" gospel is to "repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins". This is still a "works" at this time for at that time the Body of Christ was unknown, as was justification through faith. Only after Damascus Road could this gospel of justification become effective, for it is the only entrance into the Body of Christ for we today, Gentile, or Jew.

In our systematic study, we all in our Hermeneutic way are forced (or pushed) into what other men concluded in their interpretation. So each that study conclude whatever church they belong to have made the correct interpretation.

We see this in your reference to I Corinthians 11:2. But the position shown puts us into contradiction with the teachings of Christ Jesus from heaven. Paul tells us the law of the ordinances have now been nailed to the Cross, and the "…. law of commandments contained in ordinances…" Christ abolished in his flesh. Ephesians 2:15.

So I Corinthians 11:2 has been "mis-interpreted by almost every denomination, or church "fathers", and their followers. I Corinthians 11:1-2, "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
2. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you." If we look closely enough we see Paul tells us to be followers of him, as he is of Christ. Please notice Paul does not say Jesus. Paul means for us to make distinction between the man Jesus while on earth, and our Lord Jesus Christ in heaven. Paul tells us else where we are not to look to Jesus the man, but to Christ in heaven. Old things have passed away, and all things are New.

In verse 2 do we find keep the ordinances that are for those that God made Covenant with?? Or does Paul say " and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you." ? If we are to keep the "ordinances" of the Apostolic church, should we not first be "circumcised". The hand picked Apostles of Jesus, and His half-brother James said they would not preach their gospel to the "uncircumcised". They continued in the "law of ordinances", but said they would not teach such things to the Gentile heathen. They left Paul to deliver the "Christians" ordinances of justification through faith, not ordinances that come by the hands of man. The Christian ordinances are those of the Body of Christ Church, and not our earthly churches.

We are circumcised without hands, and so baptized for we are justified through His faith. "For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
4. Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more", Philippians 3:24.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

Amen to the "great commission" given by Jesus to His own people, for He said He came for them and not the heathen. To them He gave by His authority for them (Peter, James, John an the others) to spread the gospel of the Jew by faith justification, by the Grace of God to go into all the world preaching the CROSS?? No, the "great commission" gospel is to "repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins". This is still a "works" at this time for at that time the Body of Christ was unknown, as was justification through faith. Only after Damascus Road could this gospel of justification become effective, for it is the only entrance into the Body of Christ for we today, Gentile, or Jew.

In our systematic study, we all in our Hermeneutic way are forced (or pushed) into what other men concluded in their interpretation. So each that study conclude whatever church they belong to have made the correct interpretation.

We see this in your reference to I Corinthians 11:2. But the position shown puts us into contradiction with the teachings of Christ Jesus from heaven. Paul tells us the law of the ordinances have now been nailed to the Cross, and the "…. law of commandments contained in ordinances…" Christ abolished in his flesh. Ephesians 2:15.

So I Corinthians 11:2 has been "mis-interpreted by almost every denomination, or church "fathers", and their followers. I Corinthians 11:1-2, "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
2. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you." If we look closely enough we see Paul tells us to be followers of him, as he is of Christ. Please notice Paul does not say Jesus. Paul means for us to make distinction between the man Jesus while on earth, and our Lord Jesus Christ in heaven. Paul tells us else where we are not to look to Jesus the man, but to Christ in heaven. Old things have passed away, and all things are New.

In verse 2 do we find keep the ordinances that are for those that God made Covenant with?? Or does Paul say " and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you." ? If we are to keep the "ordinances" of the Apostolic church, should we not first be "circumcised". The hand picked Apostles of Jesus, and His half-brother James said they would not preach their gospel to the "uncircumcised". They continued in the "law of ordinances", but said they would not teach such things to the Gentile heathen. They left Paul to deliver the "Christians" ordinances of justification through faith, not ordinances that come by the hands of man. The Christian ordinances are those of the Body of Christ Church, and not our earthly churches.

We are circumcised without hands, and so baptized for we are justified through His faith. "For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
4. Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more", Philippians 3:24.

I do not agree with you that Paul at any point teaches us to separate the earthly Jesus from Christ in heaven. There are not two Saviors but one and by no other name may we be saved. Besides, what about what Hebrews 13:8 states, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."

 

[saturneptune]

Now ask yourself this question, is that a true statement or are the majority of churches which practice an open communion budding with visibly regenerate church members?
Quoted from above.

OK, I asked myself the question. Lets see how "budding with visibly regenerate church members" form the core of closed communion churches. This would include the Mormon, Church of Christ, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and others. Is there a pattern here?

Since Baptist churches seem to be a mix of both, (although around here a majority is not closed), how many Baptist churches that practice closed communion are "budding with visibly regenerate church members" with their pristine church rolls and top notch church discipline, since the subject has been brought up several times linking the two.

All of this is even before the argument is brought forth of the local church authority and what it means. As was said by another poster, yes the local church has the authority, and it has every right to make the policy open.

I am waiting for one clear Biblical passage that defines and estalishes closed communion that does not rely on the writings of long dead preachers.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

Now ask yourself this question, is that a true statement or are the majority of churches which practice an open communion budding with visibly regenerate church members?
Quoted from above.

OK, I asked myself the question. Lets see how "budding with visibly regenerate church members" form the core of closed communion churches. This would include the Mormon, Church of Christ, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and others. Is there a pattern here?

Since Baptist churches seem to be a mix of both, (although around here a majority is not closed), how many Baptist churches that practice closed communion are "budding with visibly regenerate church members" with their pristine church rolls and top notch church discipline, since the subject has been brought up several times linking the two.

All of this is even before the argument is brought forth of the local church authority and what it means. As was said by another poster, yes the local church has the authority, and it has every right to make the policy open.

I am waiting for one clear Biblical passage that defines and establishes closed communion that does not rely on the writings of long dead preachers.

Nept,

You need to quit including heretics in this discussion, ie Mormons, Church of Christ. It would be nice if you could differentiate from a closed communion in a Baptist doctrinal sense from that of the Roman Catholic church as well.

Moreover, why do you dismiss what someone said simply because they are no longer with us? That smacks of an unwillingness to deal with the substance of what has been put forward. If you want it to come from a contemporary theologian, then fine, but to simply dismiss Pink or any other theologian because they are dead is not fair. Should I start referring to you as (i)nept again? :tongue3: Some of the most insightful material you will ever read will have been written by a dead theologian.

Hey, that gives me an idea, who wants to join the Dead Theologians Society? I am going to start up a charter group right now!:wavey: Oh pick me! Who's first?:wavey: Oh pick me! Alright Nept. but you better be nice...:smilewinkgrin:

 

[saturneptune]

I am going to ignore the name calling, as it has produced nothing in past threads. Getting back to the thread, first of all, you want to seperate denominations you call heretics from those that are not. Would you please tell us all in this thread which denominations you consider not heretical? As a side note, after reading some beliefs from different types of Baptists, would you consider any of them heretical?

There is nothing wrong with researching dead preacher writings, however, when one cannot come up with a clear Biblical reference for an idea (such as closed communion) and rely on these types of writings, yes, there is something wrong with it.

It would not surprise anyone for those who would take closed communion to an extreme to believe that Baptists are the only group of people that are not heretical.

 

[Tom Bryant]

well, it was nice while it lasted :tear:

 

[saturneptune]

well, it was nice while it lasted :tear:

There is nothing wrong with the tone here. Say what you got to say.

 

[Tom Butler]

Ituttut,

I don't quite understand all the presuppositions you're filtering the question of closed communion through up in post #22. It seems to me that you're over-interpreting I Cor 11:2, which actually is fairly plain and simple on its own.

If I understand your point correctly, you're saying that up until Paul's conversion, the "gospel of kingdom" preached up to that time was a works salvation. That can't be right. Salvation was never of works, even in the Old Testament, much less the NT.

When Jesus committed the ordinances to the eleven, he was speaking to the members of the church he established during his earthly ministry. The Jerusalem church, along with others, were observing the ordinances regularly. In I Cor 11:2 Paul is reminding them that they need to guard the ordinances and traditions he taught them. They apparently weren't doing that very well, since the remainder of the chapter is corrective in nature.

Further, elsewhere, Paul claimed that what he preached and taught had been taught to him directly by the Lord Jesus himself. To separate what Paul taught the Corinthians from Jesus's teachings is a mistake.

And finally, you are overlaying OT law onto the gospel. The ordinances of the church are not the same as the ordinances of the OT law.

We're both chasing this rabbit, but it seems to be the basis of your views about communion. I'm guessing at this because I can't be sure what your views are.

 

[Tom Butler]

Saturneptune,

Seems to me you're argument against closed communion is based on two things. One, the tragic incident when a couple were excluded from the Lord's Supper when they had been used to taking it,even though they were not members, but long-time attendees. The other is the fact that Catholics, Church of Christ, Mormons, Orthodox churches and the like hold to closed communion.

I'm afraid you've chosen the weaker arguments. The anecdote says nothing about the validity of closed communion, only that the hurt feelings could have been prevented.

Your description of the churches named above, and the like, are heretical suggests that you do not consider them true New Testament churches (although they think they are and of course, Baptists are the heretics). So, would you invite them to share the Lord's Supper with us? That they teach a false gospel in no way speaks to the subject at hand. They all teach about the Trinity, so does the fact that we believe essentially the same as they mean it's wrong and so are we to teach it?

Actually, I grew up in a Baptist culture which held that Baptists most closely resemble the church Jesus established during his ministry. The obviously implication is, other churches do not, therefore are not true NT churches. The logic for closed communion was this: We're true NT churches, other denominations are not, the ordinances are church ordinances, they're not churches, we're not sharing communion. Other Baptists maybe, but nobody else. Closed communion was common among Southern Baptists 150 years ago. Open communion was the aberration, not the norm.

We can debate the subject, but I think if you abandon your weaker arguments, you'll be better off. Our arguments should not be based on what other churches believe, but what we can glean from the scriptures.

 

[saturneptune]

Brother Tom,
Your post is absolutely correct. Salvation is by faith, from Genesis to Revelation. I really do not know if the post was pointing towards, yours or my view on this, but it is not a good basis for each. Well brother, have a great week, and if you see the light (ie, agree with me), send me an email. :laugh:

 

[saturneptune]

That post was put up before your last one, out of order. Well, strength and weakness is in the eye of the beholder. Are you suggesting that closed communion says "we are the only valid NT church". Which denominations do you consider heretical besides the one above, or do you think all of them are? What about other branches of Baptist?

 

[saturneptune]

Brother Tom,
From your post above, you said we should glean from the Scriptures and not from what other churches believe, but really, what other churches believe is exactly why closed communion is used. As the argument goes we dont want to have communion with:

Catholics: believe in works salvation, worship idols
Church of Christ: Salvation by Baptism
Methodist: Can lose salvation
Presbyterian: Infant Baptism
Mormon: Cult
on and on .........

oh and lets not forget the other branches of Baptists:
like those who do not believe in spreading the Gospel,

Maybe an argument against close communion.

My central question still stands, which of these churches are heretical, and which are not? Lutheran and Epsicapalian are in there somewhere.

If a church (any church) had practiced church discipline over the years, and had a reasonable church membership roll, at least you would have a logical argument for closed communion. The fact remains there is no clear Scriptural reference for closed communion without lots of interpretation of different verses. The central question remains, what gives man the authority to give the Lords Supper to those who are obviously lost and exclude those who are saved? This is a man made standard. We didnt like Paul's standard from the Lord to "examine yourself", so we make our own system.

 

[Tom Butler]

Saturneptune, I agree that the validity of the argument is in the eye of the beholder. But I'm the beholder you're trying to convince with those arguments, and as you saw, I didn't behold them as convincing.

As to what other groups I consider heretical, I don't want to open that can of worms, except in general terms. There are some churches which hold different views on some things from Baptists that are just that--different. Wrong, of course, but far from heretical. But it does raise the question as to whether they would qualify as a NT church. This says nothing about the salvation of the individuals in those churches.

As to other Baptist groups, same answer.

Let me put it this way. As a general proposition, have Baptist churches historically taught what they believed to be the doctrines taught by Jesus, the apostles and other Bible writers? Without exception? The answer is yes. We consider ourselves a NT church by that definition. And by definition, if we are, other denominations can't be. And if they're right, then we're wrong and ought to disband. Can you see where this would lead to closed communion? This view goes back a long way. It's not just something I thought up.

Today our modern Baptist culture accords a moral equivalence to all evangelical groups, thus open communion is common since we're all "the church." Well, we're not. Everybody can't be right. And we either have to convince outselves that everybody is, or that the differences are unimportant.

 

[saturneptune]

Brother Tom,
As you know, I grew up in a conservative Presbyterian Church (PCA), and I suppose I was baptised as an infant. (I really dont remember). On the coast of Gulfport, MS, the first Baptist church and first Presbyterian stood side by side until Katrina destroyed both.

This is my point. In the Presbyterian Church, I learned the catacism (sp). I joined the church at 13 or so and this was suppose to be a saving faith relationship with Jesus Christ. Well, you know my testimony, and I will forever be grateful to our church for nurturing me to realize my lost condition before a Holy God. In these debates, you will not hurt my feelings if you compare Presbyterians, because I am a Baptist and thankful to God that I am here.

That said, growing up, we would occasionally go to the First Baptist Church where my grandmother was a member. We took communion there. This was in the 50s and 60s.

You present a good argument, as you were very instrumental in convincing me of the TULIP points, after arguing with my Dad all these years about the subject.

Although I believe my points are quite valid, this is a matter of debate with a good spirit. As a poster said earlier, the authority rests with the local church, and the church has the right to make the communion open. Once the church decides, God has spoken, and it is time to move forward in the life of the church.

 

[Tom Butler]

Mike, you and I won't ever have a falling out over this question. It is the shared love for Christ and the love for truth that enables us to remain brothers even while seeing some things differently.

I want to be careful to distinguish between Christian fellowship and church fellowship. I can fellowship with Christians of other faiths and have done so. I have spoken and sung in Methodist, Cumberland Presbyterian, Charismatic and Lutheran Churches. Their salvation is not in doubt for me.

But our churches are different. Our beliefs, practice and government are different. I could never take communion in those churches (or other Baptist churches for that matter) because I do not recognize their authority over me, a non-member. Fellowship yes, communion no.

Further, in our politically correct culture today, we must be careful not to offend anyone by declaring that they are just plain wrong, especially about religious matters. So we will turn logic on its head. Even I do it. You and I disagree, but we wouldn't dare describe each others' beliefs as error--just different. Yet both of us can't be right.

So our Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, Pentecostal brethren are not in error--we just see things differently. See what I mean? To declare them wrong--even heretical--is too judgmental, don't you see? We need to be kinder, gentler. Like gentle baby Jesus, not like blustery Peter and mean old Paul. They had the nasty habit of calling spades spades.

The search for truth is made more difficult when we want to call a spade something else, lest anybody be offended.

 

[Helen]

Closed Communion is man judging man. We know that not all members of any one church or denomination are saved. Therefore it is almost silly to say that unless a person is a member of your church/denomination that they may not take Communion with you. Let God judge.

Here is something that happened to Barry and me last April. There was a church in Australia that had asked us to speak there. In fact, after the morning service, there was a potluck lunch on the church grounds and then Barry spoke for literally the rest of the day, until a barbeque dinner on the church grounds, after which he gave his final lecture and then, as it got dark, took everyone out for an astronomy lesson.

They were willing to listen to him all day and into the evening. They paid us well.

We were not allowed to take Communion with them that morning, however, because we were not members of their church/denomination.

 

[Tom Butler]

Actually Helen, it's actually the assembly, charged with guarding the ordinances, which is passing judgement--just as they are commanded to do. They are not judging one's salvation. They are judging one's faithfulness to the covenant commitment made with the other members of the church. Or, they are judging obvious flagrant behavior which on its face demands that the church exercise judgment, or risk judgment itself for failure to "discern the body and blood," that is, the nature of the Lord's Supper.

The church in Australia that you and Barry visited was correct in excluding you from the Lord's Supper. They meant no offense and you should take none.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

I will concede that it is true that the church has the authority to administer the Lord’s Supper, but it is also obligated to remain faithful to the teachings of Scripture in order to enjoy that authority. I do not accept that a church can rule in favor of an open communion and thus the issue is settled by the authority of the church. The church has an authority but there is a higher authority still and it is under his authority that true authority rests. Therefore if we are not true to his Word then any authority we may want to appeal to is lost.

While I can see a certain logic in defending an open communion based on the rule of self-examination; however, the law of self-examination is not given in isolation. The Scriptures teach that, although the individual shall examine himself, the church also does have some responsibility for the Christian life of its members, see Matthew 18. Paul, for example, requested the church at Corinth to expel from its fellowship the unrepentant person (I Cor. 5:2, 13).

Some here present a straw man argument that we cannot know who is and who is not saved entirely therefore let all have access to the communion. Those who hold to closed communion do not claim omniscience; they claim only that there are biblical requirements for membership in the church and for admission to the Lord's table.

A major reason for closed communion is that church discipline would be meaningless if only the individual himself were the judge as to whether he enjoyed full fellowship in the congregation. I once witnessed a man who was an alcoholic and an exhibitionist who was confronted by our deacon body once his rather obvious indiscretions came to light, who was asked to examine himself and unless he was willing to repent, to please reframe from taking the Lord’s supper. When left to his own conscience I saw that man partake of the table. It broke his wife’s heart. On top of everything else he had done she prayed Lord do not let him make a sacrilege of your table. Our church at the time followed the law of self examination and had an open communion policy.

What about the other denominations that do not openly oppose even things such as drinking, abortion, or homosexuality like the liberal Lutherans, Presbyterians-USA, Methodists and Episcopalians? Moreover, most mainline denominations do not require a believer’s baptism. It seems impossible to recognize the norms of all other denominations as satisfying New Testament requirements for church membership. Closed communion is therefore in part made necessary by the behavior of some professing Christians within our own church, and in part it is occasioned by the sub-Christian standards of some other denominations. It would seem inconsistent to refuse communion to a member of one's group for not accepting the discipline of the group (after having gone through the process of church discipline according to Matthew 18, as in the case that Tom Bryant mentioned) but then to offer communion to an individual from another group having no such disciplinary standard (as would be the case at Tom Bryant’s church which practices an almost closed but close/mostly open communion).

Quite frankly I simply think there is need to get some backbone here. Christians are exclusive in our belief that Jesus is the only way to heaven. As Baptists we require that in order to become a member of a church a candidate must submit to a believer’s baptism and yet we some how loose our way when it comes to enforcing a standard for the sacred and spiritually meaningful ordinance of the Lord’s Supper.

The community of the local church is to be evident in its moral purity. Christians are to live in obedience to the Word of God and to be exemplary in their conduct and authentic in their testimony. In my opinion, a lack of attention to moral purity is a sure sign of congregational rebellion before the Lord.

I agree that the integrity of the church is to a certain degree dependent upon the true unity of its fellowship. No one enjoys experiences like that nept gave mention to; however, to what degree are we willing to go to in order to achieve this unity? The unity of the church is vitally important but at what cost? Do we want unity at the expense of our biblical fidelity? The act of a closed communion is not a threat to the unity of the body; it is a means of establishing true unity within the body, and a means of expelling those who threaten that unity due to wanton rebellion or doctrinal error.

I am resolved that the ongoing function of communion is to be part individual self-examination and part congregational reflection, i.e. both/and. There is clearly a place for self-examination; however, that self-examination is not given that one may examine yourself in order to see if you are worthy or not to come to the table. That self-examination is given in order to make yourself ready to come to the table. I examine myself each and every time I partake of the table, not in order to determine if I should exclude myself but in order to allow the deep truths of the gospel to approach me and correct me. The grace of the gospel is incomprehensible, but before we partake of the table we should give it some thought in order to benefit spiritually from the experience. One of the greatest sins brought to the table is thoughtlessness. How dare you take of the Lord’s Supper without so much as a single thought as to what it means and how great a cost it represents.

Yet, the church as a corporate body reserves the right to determine its membership based on biblical teachings. As it reserves the right to claim that there are biblical requirements for membership in the church, it also reserves the right to grant admission to the Lord's table based on these same requirements for membership, specifically to those baptized believers who are willing to submit to the discipline of the church and in good standing with the congregation.

 

[mima]

If a closed communion is the correct way, by the authority of the church, why did the Lord Jesus Christ offer Communion to Judas? The Lord Jesus Christ had already stated that one of those he will had chosen was a devil "Judas" so he was not in ignorance of Judas' Condition or what he would do.