-
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!
Closed communion
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
I agree. Quoting the Syriac and Arabic translation while ignoring the very clear Greek seems more than a bit problematic to me.
The church I attend now has open communion. In my previous church in which I served at we "fenced the table". We read Paul's admonition to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:23-32) and asked each person in attendance to examine their conscience before partaking. We would also give a short 1-2 minute exhortation about the Lord's Supper before administering the elements.
How? Please elaborate.
And if we go strictly by this in support of closed communion, women can not partake of it, either.
How many women were in the Twelve?
I'm not inclined to spend any length of time on this. I made the John Gill comment sort of in jest. Obviously if he is right, I am wrong -- so he must be wrong.
I did think it odd that he went to the Syrian and Arabic translations, rather than make the case in Greek. Further, I think the majority of times that breaking bread is mentioned in the New Testament it is a meal that is not the Lord's Supper. Where the broken bread is without question the Lord's Supper the cup is also mentioned.
Last edited:
That’s not what I meant, and maybe I misunderstood why you used the last supper. If I did, I apologize.
Those who practice closed communion use the last supper as support for their communion being closed. If that’s the case, if that’s their model, then women have be excluded, as no women were there with them.
I advocate a communion open to all believers who are in good standing with their church.
You just made his point. Jesus invited a select group. That instance is not a model for who should attend future communion services.
Why can't women be members of the local congregation of believers?
Why not?
If it was a literal model then only men named Peter, Andrew, James, John, .... Could attend. You could only have it in an upper room. Only 12 plus the pastor. Etc. Etc.
If one subscribes to: "The Holy Catholic Church" of the Apostles Creed, one must believe in the universal church. This would be contrary to closed communion. Many of the so-called holy fathers were in serious error.
The term "local church" is misleading. It implies that there is some other kind-- i.e. universal.
There are three possibilities: universal-visible--Catholic; universal-invisible--Protestants; and local-some heretical bapistic groups. The correct answer is not all of the above.
Closed communion has become a test of fellowship in some baptistic circles.
In some places, anybody's immersion will qualify.
Beware the wolves in fleece.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
The term "local church" is misleading. It implies that there is some other kind-- i.e. universal.
There are three possibilities: universal-visible--Catholic; universal-invisible--Protestants; and local-some heretical bapistic groups. The correct answer is not all of the above.
Closed communion has become a test of fellowship in some baptistic circles.
In some places, anybody's immersion will qualify.
Beware the wolves in fleece.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
You are not understanding my point and it’s my apology for not getting it across clearly.
Around here, churches who practice closed communion use the last supper to support their communion being closed.
If that’s the model they’re using, and no women were there at the last supper, then they would have to not allow women to partake if they wish to remain true to that model, imo.
I think it may be you who is not understanding me. I asked how many women were members of the 12 so they could be at the Last Supper.
Is it possible the first church lacked women members? It was not until after the Ascension that the 120 met in the upper room, and that number, presumably included women. But as the membership of the 12 was limited to men (all having men's names) why assume they were members but excluded? And if there were female members, could their be another reason for their absence? Maybe they were in the kitchen preparing the meal? (Jesus may have been the first person to say "Make me a sammich."
)
So, you want to make the model walk on all fours? Or all sixes? Or all twelves?
Because Jesus said "I am the door" does that mean He is a literal, solid core, door with a dead bolt and a pass through lock, security hinges, and a little peek hole to see who is on the other side?
When He said "I am the bread of life" did He mean white, wholewheat, or sour dough? Sliced?
Closed communionists are not holding the Last Supper as a model to be replicated exactly. In the realm of the closed part of communion, most see it as indicating principle. If the last/first supper was a private observance restricted to those whom Jesus invited, there would be no reason to suppose the Lord's Supper in the church age cannot also be a private observance restricted to those whom Jesus invites. Maybe that helps explain how closed communionists see it supporting their position without trying to create an exact replica.
No, you are the one trying to make the Last Supper more literal than it was. That's on you, not me.So, you want to make the model walk on all fours? Or all sixes? Or all twelves?
Because Jesus said "I am the door" does that mean He is a literal, solid core, door with a dead bolt and a pass through lock, security hinges, and a little peek hole to see who is on the other side?
When He said "I am the bread of life" did He mean white, wholewheat, or sour dough? Sliced?
Hmmm. Are you saying you don't believe the Last Supper was a literal last supper? Are you saying it didn't occur, or that it didn't occur as the bible describes?
Believing it was a literal supper? Yes. That is on me. I believe it occurred just as the bible says.