Baptist_Pastor/Theologian
New Member
ituttut said:
...
First of all our God is not a God of division, but unity.
Duet. 6:4
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
A Case for a Closed Communion
- Thread starter Baptist_Pastor/Theologian
- Start date
...
First of all our God is not a God of division, but unity.
Duet. 6:4
Tom Butler
New Member
As we were saying....
Saturneptune, my brother, you said BP/T had failed to establish a connection between church discipline and the Lord's Supper in his essay. As a matter of fact, not only did he establish the connection, but he also did it very well. In doing, he gave one of the strongest arguments for closed communion.
Remember the man in I Cor 5 who was involved in the illicit relationship with his mother-in-law, which apparently the congregation knew about and refused to deal with it? Paul's admonition was to withdraw fellowship from him immediately. Of course, that is about all a congregation can do with an unrepentant member. Under open communion, however, the congregation would have no basis for denying this flagrant fornicator the Lord's Supper.
Further, the fact that our own church doesn't practice church discipline very well or very often, is not valid argument against restricting the Lord's table to members only. It may in fact result in a situation where delinquent members are allowed to participate while dedicated believers from other Baptist churches are denied. But your argument argument against closed communion is really more an argument against the imperfect administration of the Lord's Supper and is a strong argument for better church discipline.
That way a church won't have to make those kinds of choices you mentioned.
Saturneptune, my brother, you said BP/T had failed to establish a connection between church discipline and the Lord's Supper in his essay. As a matter of fact, not only did he establish the connection, but he also did it very well. In doing, he gave one of the strongest arguments for closed communion.
Remember the man in I Cor 5 who was involved in the illicit relationship with his mother-in-law, which apparently the congregation knew about and refused to deal with it? Paul's admonition was to withdraw fellowship from him immediately. Of course, that is about all a congregation can do with an unrepentant member. Under open communion, however, the congregation would have no basis for denying this flagrant fornicator the Lord's Supper.
Further, the fact that our own church doesn't practice church discipline very well or very often, is not valid argument against restricting the Lord's table to members only. It may in fact result in a situation where delinquent members are allowed to participate while dedicated believers from other Baptist churches are denied. But your argument argument against closed communion is really more an argument against the imperfect administration of the Lord's Supper and is a strong argument for better church discipline.
That way a church won't have to make those kinds of choices you mentioned.
Baptist_Pastor/Theologian
New Member
rsr said:
rsr,
Are we not free to discuss theology in a theological forum? Is not orthodoxy important to Baptists? Therefore if someone comes in here and says that the Lord is a God of division and that he separated Jesus from his divine nature, are we not free to discuss the potential heretical leanings that a kenosis christology incorporates. Are we only to drink the coolaid you serve us?
BPT
saturneptune
New Member
Brother Tom,
Thanks for the kind words. As you can tell, this individual pushes every button I have, and maybe I lose clear thought with this guy. As I have told you in the past, I have a real problem dealing with name calling, rudeness and arrogance and makes me lose clear thought. I know it is edited now, but the very next poster he had called a heretic before the post was over.
I will concede this. If there was a clean church roll, and some form of church discipline, the argument for closed communion would be much stronger, and would cause lots less emotion.
Thanks for the kind words. As you can tell, this individual pushes every button I have, and maybe I lose clear thought with this guy. As I have told you in the past, I have a real problem dealing with name calling, rudeness and arrogance and makes me lose clear thought. I know it is edited now, but the very next poster he had called a heretic before the post was over.
I will concede this. If there was a clean church roll, and some form of church discipline, the argument for closed communion would be much stronger, and would cause lots less emotion.
Tom Butler
New Member
I think we all have hot buttons. When I was in the TV News business, I regularly got letters from irate viewers, who had worked up a head of steam over some issue and released it all on me. I developed the habit of dashing off a hot response, basically letting it all hang out. Then I would stick in the desk drawer and let it simmer overnight. The next morning, I would throw it in the trash and write a more reasoned response without the emotion.
I think it is good to remember that we're all believers here, that our disagreements are not personal and we would do well to assume that all motives are pure. It is possible to engage in debate and discussion without pushing hot buttons or allowing our own buttons to be pushed.
When we respond with emotion, we no longer are contributing anythng profitable to the discussion. And it distracts us all from the primary reason we are here: To engage in friendly debate and test our views against reasoned and well-articulated opposing opinions.
It is difficult, but no one can make you angry if you won't allow it. Otherwise, you have given them control over you.
I also learned in dealing with my children that shouting at them did not produce the desired result--only anger. What got their attention was when I lowered my voice to a whisper. They didn't like what they were hearing, but they did not get angry.
So my parting advice before hitting the sack is this: Stick that sharp response in the drawer overnight--or at least five minutes.
I think it is good to remember that we're all believers here, that our disagreements are not personal and we would do well to assume that all motives are pure. It is possible to engage in debate and discussion without pushing hot buttons or allowing our own buttons to be pushed.
When we respond with emotion, we no longer are contributing anythng profitable to the discussion. And it distracts us all from the primary reason we are here: To engage in friendly debate and test our views against reasoned and well-articulated opposing opinions.
It is difficult, but no one can make you angry if you won't allow it. Otherwise, you have given them control over you.
I also learned in dealing with my children that shouting at them did not produce the desired result--only anger. What got their attention was when I lowered my voice to a whisper. They didn't like what they were hearing, but they did not get angry.
So my parting advice before hitting the sack is this: Stick that sharp response in the drawer overnight--or at least five minutes.
Baptist_Pastor/Theologian said:
But do we not first find He is a God of Division in the first words we hear from Him? Genesis 1 tells as He created, He divided the heaven and the earth, in verse 4, and then verse 6 more division, and it continues as we read His Word.
Do you believe in the Holy Trinity? In order to understand His "unity", are we not to endeavor to understand His "diversity"? In His "unity" we know there is completeness for we see it in His "diversities". Christ Jesus from heaven helps us out here as we see in I Corinthians 12:3-7, "Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
7. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal."
Yes, I believe our God divides, but He is able to put back together again, for He is All in All. Ephesians 4:3-6, "Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5. One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."
If we believe the Word of God divided out Himself to become the only begotten Son of God, then we can believe we are in the Body of Christ, in the Spirit in our calling. In this division of God we have our unity in our One Lord, our One faith (through faith), our one Spiritual baptism (without hands), and our One God and Father is of all, above all, through all, in we all, that He has divided out of the world.
Didn't Jesus divide scriptures in the synagogue in Nazareth when reading from Isaiah, as Luke tells us in 4:16-20? In reading Isaiah 6l:1-2 we see He read only part of verse 2. He made a division as He quickly closed the book. Has He not divided out His people having them justified By faith, and we (me) Gentiles Through faith? It goes on. Our God is a God of division according to His Word. I believe in the Holy Trinity.
Brother Bob
New Member
:laugh: :laugh: 
Is this what a closed communion is?
Is this what a closed communion is?
Last edited by a moderator:
Baptist_Pastor/Theologian said:
Hello BTP,
What brother rsr is trying do, as a moderator, is keep the thred on topic and stop the personal attacks that occurred earlier in this thread. You are free to discuss the topic of the opening post in this thread as well as other related issues that arise during the conversation. However, the point of the thread based message board is to try and remain on topic so that the follow of discussion and thought is focused and easy to follow. No one is trying to serve you coolaid (I'm assuming that is a reference to Jim Jones' cult), but simply to keep the thread on topic and stop the abusive name calling and personal attacks. Finally, if you wish to debate whether God is a God of division vs a God of unity please feel free to start a new thread (with its own topic heading) on that topic by copying and quoting a passage from post that first brought up that issue.
The primary purpose of this thread is to discuss open vs closed communion.
Yours in Christ,
Bible-Boy,
Forum Moderator
Last edited by a moderator:
I know this isn't on topic (well, it's on-topic about the off-topic, if you get what I mean), but reading this thread and others brings back memories of this Monty Python sketch:
Man: Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.
Receptionist: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
Man: No, I haven't, this is my first time.
Receptionist: I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?
Man: Well, what is the cost?
Receptionist: Well, It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.
Man: Well, I think it would be best if I perhaps started off with just the one and then see how it goes.
Receptionist: Fine. Well, I'll see who's free at the moment.
(Pause)
Receptionist: Mr. DeBakey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory. Ah yes, Try Mr. Barnard; room 12.
Man: Thank you.
(Walks down the hall. Opens door.)
Mr Barnard: WHAT DO YOU WANT?
Man: Well, I was told outside that...
Mr Barnard: Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
Man: What?
Mr Barnard: Shut your festering gob, you git! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
Man: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!
Mr Barnard: OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
Man: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
Mr Barnard: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
Man: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
Mr Barnard: Not at all.
Man: Thank You.
Moral: The board is for arguments (debate) but it often seems like we end up in the room for abuse instead.
Man: Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.
Receptionist: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
Man: No, I haven't, this is my first time.
Receptionist: I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?
Man: Well, what is the cost?
Receptionist: Well, It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.
Man: Well, I think it would be best if I perhaps started off with just the one and then see how it goes.
Receptionist: Fine. Well, I'll see who's free at the moment.
(Pause)
Receptionist: Mr. DeBakey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory. Ah yes, Try Mr. Barnard; room 12.
Man: Thank you.
(Walks down the hall. Opens door.)
Mr Barnard: WHAT DO YOU WANT?
Man: Well, I was told outside that...
Mr Barnard: Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
Man: What?
Mr Barnard: Shut your festering gob, you git! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
Man: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!
Mr Barnard: OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
Man: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
Mr Barnard: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
Man: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
Mr Barnard: Not at all.
Man: Thank You.
Moral: The board is for arguments (debate) but it often seems like we end up in the room for abuse instead.
Almost missed this one TBTom Butler said:
I believe I see what you are saying and will go from there. I believe you may straddle the two foundations on the foundation of Christ Jesus. Correct me if I am wrong.
Don't understand how I can "over-interpret" a clear statement of fact. Perhaps you suppose Paul to be connected as one of the twelve Apostles of Pentecostal gospel and belief for salvation in this dispensation of the Jew and the Gentile, in that way making interpretation of I Corinthians 11:2 of no importance - "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you." Peter tells us it very hard to understand the gospel that Christ gave to Paul.
Couple this verse with Romans 2:16, "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel." There is no way we can honestly spin either verse to mean other than what they say, confirming each other. The Bible interprets, and we are to believe its interpretation. It will not contradict. Add Galatians 2:11-12 and we stand naked in the truth of Christ Jesus gospel from heaven He gave to Paul for we Gentiles (Jew also) today as are we (me). "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."
I don't hesitate to agree that "kingdom gospel" is not of works salvation, but with works in His Grace. Can we not readily prove Works were necessary? Notice in Hebrews 11 all are justified by faith. Did Abel do anything to please God that we don't do? How about Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and the rest? ? We know even in the NT the Sabbath was still a Holy Day, they still under the Law "tithed", they continued in the law of ordinances given to them, the "covenant" people of God, and they continued to make "blood sacrifice", and they continued to be circumcised………. Did they do a work of the hands of man? We must answer yes, and when we do we should ask the question, why don't we have to do as all before Damascus Road.
We differ as to what is an ordinance and what is not. Water baptism "was" an ordinance of the Jewish church. The bread and cup has never been an ordinance, for it is a "remembrance, and a memorial". Paul reformed the table of the Lord as it was packaged in his commission as our Apostle according to I Corinthians 11:23. "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you…………….". This is part of Paul's gospel to we Gentile's. Had Christ not given this to Paul, we in the Body of Christ would not wish to entertain this request that was given to the gospel of the circumcision. For this reason also we should not accept "baptism" as an ordinance for we in Christ. Why? Paul does not reform it for us. The "remission of sins" for the nation Israel accomplished by the command to "repent and be baptized" was an "ordinance" to that church of the "kingdom is at hand" gospel. The ordinances for the nation of Israel are not for the Christian, or a church they may attend.
For this reason I can find no requirement to have "closed communion" with our Lord. It is not the church (earthly) that is having communion with Him, but the Christian wherever they may be, such as a nursing home, or gospel mission. It is in the corporate Body of Christ Church that we commune with Him, as we worship while remembering Him just as He requested.
We are in harmony here if you are saying what Christ revealed to Paul from heaven is of another gospel. Perhaps you agree that Paul does have a gospel, his gospel, and we accept what he (Paul) delivers; The gospel has not always been the same for we today are justified through faith, and the others justified by faith, and "all things are become new".
Have I said otherwise for those in the Body of Christ? The Law and the Prophets were even before John. What have we to do with that? We may perhaps agree on some things, but I don't know of which "foundation" you are on.
We are of the same bent on this as I also see we are making observations on limited input. As I believe the gospel of Paul, I must believe what Christ revealed to Him about communion in the New Covenant, this remembrance we may, or may not do, so it cannot be an ordinance as was "water baptism" in the "great commission" for the Israelites.
I trust the above will give further insight into my belief of justification faith. I am a dispensationalist Baptist (The Median Dispensational View) that believes we are saved by the grace of God through faith without the need for works to justify us. I simply believe the gospel of Paul, and not that of John the Baptist, the "great commission" of Repent and be water Baptized for the Remission of Sins, as found in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts 2:38. We are free of all ordinances of that "old covenant", of which we were never a part.
I believe there are two (2) foundations laid on the foundation of Jesus Christ, and I am in the Body of Christ on the foundation laid down by Paul, and not Peter of the "great commission".
You know on what foundation I'm on, looking for the rapture, not the kingdom that comes afterwards. Appreciate if you will tell me on which foundation you are building.
rsr said:
Oops! Sorry rsr. Just now saw your post of yesterday. I stand corrected from your standpoint, and not to be argumentative, but informative from my view. I see Communion is "divided" into "Closed", or "Open. And as our good Pastor brought up "division" of the Baptist church with others, I got off on "divisional beliefs". However you are right, and I am at your mercy and rules, which I intend to abide in. I'll do my best to stay within parameter. But in debate of this nature it is so difficult to put up solid walls with no doors or windows as we enter into ecclesiology.
Tom Butler
New Member
Ituttut,
Thanks for your reply to my post. I must say that your position is new to me. Your description of yourself as a Dispensational Baptist does help me somewhat, since your view is a variation of dispensational thought.
If I understand correctly, you do not accept baptism as an ordinance. That's also a new view to me, and I'll not comment unless I can start another thread on that subject.
Your view that the Lord's Supper is a Christian, not a church, ordinance, therefore should be open to all believers, is also consistent with Dispensationalism as I understand it. Since I'm not a Dispy, it's natural that I see things differently.
Since I've laid out my position in previous posts, I'll not repeat them. But I am curious to know if anyone else on the BB shares your perspective.
Thanks for your reply to my post. I must say that your position is new to me. Your description of yourself as a Dispensational Baptist does help me somewhat, since your view is a variation of dispensational thought.
If I understand correctly, you do not accept baptism as an ordinance. That's also a new view to me, and I'll not comment unless I can start another thread on that subject.
Your view that the Lord's Supper is a Christian, not a church, ordinance, therefore should be open to all believers, is also consistent with Dispensationalism as I understand it. Since I'm not a Dispy, it's natural that I see things differently.
Since I've laid out my position in previous posts, I'll not repeat them. But I am curious to know if anyone else on the BB shares your perspective.
Appreciate the reply.Tom Butler said:
As the ordinances of those of law, and works were nailed to the Cross, I don't see how we can bring over "repent and be baptized for the remission of our sins" into our mist. This is what the Catholic church and others have done. Of course we Baptist say "water baptism" has nothing to do with the way we are justified of God.
I just cannot fathom why some Baptist churches and members say they believe in the "great commission" for "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins" is for those "justified by faith", as shown in Acts 2:38. Again this is what the Catholic church believes. Yet many Baptists say, and preach the "great commission". Confusing to say the least in my understanding of His Word. We cannot stand or build on the foundation of Peter, and also on the foundation of Paul, both built on the foundation of Jesus the Christ.
I have had a few private messages on this board wanting to know more, and/or agreeing, more on other boards. There are not too many in Baptist churches though (Grace churches yes) that see the "dispensational" gospel that Christ gave to Paul.
