A Case for a Closed Communion

[Tom Butler]

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.

 

[npetreley]

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.

 

[Brother Bob]

Originally Posted by Tom Butler
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.

No women either, if that means anything?

 

[saturneptune]

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?

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

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.

Okay all you open communion folks, well then, using this logic, you would call pastors who are lost too then because the apostles are certainly analogous to pastors. Do we really want to use this as a test case for an open communion because of Judas? If so then you should have an open pastorate as well. As to the exclusion of women from the table, Jesus taught women at a time when that was heavily frowned upon. Jesus certainly created women for an important role but that role was limited in scope and authority. Read the qualifications for a pastor in 1 Timothy 3 and I think you will find that men are identified as pastors and deacons. Jesus was not keeping women from the table as much as he was serving by example the future leaders of his church. Also, Matthew 18 gives us a way of dealing with the Judas' of the world. If you have a Judas in your midst you must go through the steps of Matthew 18 and eventually you will free yourself of that inconsistency.

 

[Brother Bob]

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?

 

[npetreley]

Okay all you open communion folks, well then, using this logic, you would call pastors who are lost too then because the apostles are certainly analogous to pastors. Do we really want to use this as a test case for an open communion because of Judas? If so then you should have an open pastorate as well. As to the exclusion of women from the table, Jesus taught women at a time when that was heavily frowned upon. Jesus certainly created women for an important role but that role was limited in scope and authority. Read the qualifications for a pastor in 1 Timothy 3 and I think you will find that men are identified as pastors and deacons. Jesus was not keeping women from the table as much as he was serving by example the future leaders of his church. Also, Matthew 18 gives us a way of dealing with the Judas' of the world. If you have a Judas in your midst you must go through the steps of Matthew 18 and eventually you will free yourself of that inconsistency.

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

 

[saturneptune]

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.

 

[Brother Bob]

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.

 

[TomVols]

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?

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.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

Response to Nept part 1

This message inadvertently ovedited during the clean-up process.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

Part 2

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.

Nept, this is getting to be somewhat of a pattern with you. You are not demonstrating a competent level of reading comprehension. It did not work the first time but try and read this and spend time with it before you go making statements such as you just made. For if anything you may say you do not agree with my position but you cannot say I have not attempted to demonstrate a biblical argument.

(#1)The instructions for church discipline make sense only in the context of membership

In Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus gave us instructions on how the church should respond when someone within the church persists in living like an unbeliever. We read of a specific case of this in 1 Corinthians 5 and how the Apostle Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, instructed the Christians in the church at Corinth to handle it. In verses 11-13 Paul says, "But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner-not even to eat with such a person. For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore 'put away from yourselves the evil person.'"

There was a sexually immoral man in this church. Was Paul simply telling them not to let this man come to church with them because he was acting like an unbeliever instead of a Christian? No, he couldn't have meant that, for we know from other places in this letter (cf. 14:24-25) that unbelievers were welcome to attend church meetings. Even when they obeyed Paul's instructions to "put away from yourselves the evil person" and considered the man an unbeliever, they would have allowed (even welcomed) him to come and sit under the preaching of God's Word like any other person in town. So in what sense would they have "put away" ("remove"-NASB, "expel"-NIV) this man?

The best way of explaining how they would have "put away" this man is to understand that they removed him from the membership of the church and generally stopped associating with him outside the church meetings.

Notice that Paul refers to those who are "inside" and to those who are "outside." Outside of what? As we've noted, anyone could attend their meetings. This kind of language can only refer to a definite church membership of converted people. For what authority does a group have to remove someone who is already "outside" and not a member of the group? You can't fire someone who doesn't work for you. You can't vote in your country to remove a government official elected by another country. You can't appeal to a court to discipline someone who isn't within its jurisdiction. In the same way, you can't formally discipline someone who is in an informal relationship with you; you have no authority to do so. These people in Corinth had voluntarily committed themselves to a formal relationship and they knew who were official members of the church and who were "outside."

Church discipline must be done by the "church" (Matthew 18:17) and occur "when you are gathered together" (1 Corinthians 5:4). Who is to gather together? How do you know who the "church" is? How do you determine who does and does not have the right to speak and vote on such matters? Does the person subject to discipline have the liberty to bring in his extended family or coworkers who have never been to the church, or even people off the street, and expect them to be given an equal say with those who have been faithful to the church for years? No? Why not? Do you exclude them from involvement because they've never been part of the church? Then what about the person who attended once five years ago? Or those who came at Easter and Christmas last year? Or those who regularly watch the church services on television or listen to them on the radio, and perhaps even send money, but never enter the building? Or those from distant cities who visit several times each year because of family members in the church? Obviously, Biblical church discipline must be limited to a specific group and that must mean the church members.

The expressed purpose of the communion I believe is given to the local church and not the universal church. When you take communion with another you are affirming their Christian faith. How then if you take communion with a bunch of say recalcitrant Methodists could you then turn around and go door to witnessing to them. This may sound crazy but think about it. You have a community communion at your church, and the whole community is invited. Then your outreach team goes door to door and comes to man who participated. Let’s say that the man sharing the witness was the deacon who handed out the elements. It seems kind of backwards to give a man, in this case a local Methodist, the Lord’s Supper and later ask him do you know Jesus? Should we assume everyone knows Jesus who participates in the Lord’s Supper? No. But when they are members of your church and their lifestyle does not match up to what they profess to believe there is a process by which we confront the disparity of their professed belief and their apparent lack of fruit as to the authenticity of that belief. Faith without works is dead. Church discipline is the key to a regenerate church and a closed communion is the key to church discipline.

More development…

(#21)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:[/
Quote:
. . . 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:

Quote:
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.)

 

[Brother Bob]

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.

 

[saturneptune]

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.

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

...

Read Matthew chapter 18 because the mandate for church discipline centers on the command of Christ as represented in Matt 18:15

 

[saturneptune]

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?

 

[npetreley]

Nuff not said. Arrogance is your MO, not mine. You just dont get it, do you? What does banning a sinning member from fellowship in the church have to do with closed or open communion.

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

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

Now as to the substance of your last post which I do appreciate you offering for a change, let me just say a few things.

What does banning a sinning member from fellowship in the church have to do with closed or open communion.

There could not be a more telling sign that you do not understand the substance of this discussion that by asking what you just asked. Nept, seriously I am having a hard time restraining my unkind spirit here.:smilewinkgrin:

Since you asked, npet you can listen here to if you would like, let me just answer that by saying this: EVERYTHING.

It would be entirely inconsistent to refuse communion to a member of one's own church for not accepting the discipline of the congregation (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 denomination or church which has no such disciplinary standard.

Nept and Npet you two guys have some answering to do. You cannot claim to hold to an open communion and exclude anyone from communion. If you exclude someone from communion as in the case of Matthew 18 through church discipline you are practicing a type of closed communion.

But I guess you guys would assume that it is okay to ban a fellow baptist from communion for being a public alcoholic who refuses to get help, but you see no problem with a gay Episcopal priest strolling through town and dropping by for communion. How do you know who has a credible testimony and who does not if you do not know them? If you open it to all you cannot exclude anyone. If a Muslim came to your church, if you do not have a means of closing communion and the plate went by and he wanted to I guarantee you that he could help himself. So in your church someone in ignorance will take the communion not understanding what they are doing and no one will do a thing to stop it. Why? Because it is open. For that matter little children who do not know any better will do the same, and their parents will not stop it because they do not see the harm in it. You guys really do not have a genuine understanding of the purpose of the Lord's Supper if it is as trivial a matter as you would evidently lead us to believe it is.

 

[ituttut]

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."

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".

 

[Baptist_Pastor/Theologian]

Something that has been put forward here is that those who believe in closed communion must make a clear case biblically, otherwise we will assume it is an open communion. The NT assumes a closed communion, that is a local body of believers who are intimate with one another and committed to each other. Take for example 1 Cor. 10:16,17

16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

Here we see that the Lord's Supper is to be observed by a group of people who comprise one body. The loaf of bread itself is to symbolize something of the unity that this body possesses. It is clear then that the Supper is a social ordinance to be participated in by a body of people. Obviously, this group must be comprised of Christians. We agree that only those who have experienced a work of grace in their hearts and have trusted in Christ alone for their salvation should be included in this body of partakers.

Some here have objected and argued Judas Iscariot, someone who was clearly not a believer, partakes of the first Lord's Supper. Even though Judas later proved to be a false disciple, he had not yet proven to be a false disciple at the time of this first Supper. It would be absurd to suggest that we invite known unbelievers to the table when Paul calls for the removal of an immoral brother from the table (1 Cor. 5:2).

As baptists we agree that in addition to being a true Christian, we also believe that only baptized Christians should comprise this body who partakes of the Supper together. The Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20) teaches that in our disciple making, we are to first baptize those who have believed in Christ and then teach them to observe all that Christ has commanded. We should baptize our disciples before teaching them to observe the Lord's Supper.

As will reinterate, I certainly think we want to keep away from an ecumenically open communion. The fact is that there are too many 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 at least a close communion is also necessary in part due to the ethical 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) but then to offer communion to an individual from another group having no such disciplinary standard.