closed communion

Charles thanks for your input. I don't in anyway write off Passover. But the model does not hold toward the NT church. I have a problem even seeing the closed system of sharing the passover or the Lord's Supper in the passover occurance. There was never any exclusion toward others in the celebration of Passover. Jewish people even today will have friends and others over to celebrate the Passover meal. So, one might say in the first Passover they met in their own homes. No kidding-where else did they have to meet? They were in bondage in a foreign land. There still was not statement in Scripture that only those of a particular household could share the Passover together.

As to you second point about me being upset about not being able to vote for someone who has just received Jesus in a church I am visiting. It would not bother me in the least. If I went to a church with closed communion I would not partake out of respect for that church. My point is that it may be their practice, but it is not taught in Scripture. By the way, I will open up another can of worms here with your question. Voting in people who have received Jesus as their Savior is also a matter of church polity and is not practiced in the NT or taught in the Scripture.

Some might say then what do you do at your church. We receive them with open arms. We are not a club that one needs to be voted in to. They share their desire to be apart of our fellowship and we receive them and share that now they are accountable to us and us to them. And yes we do and have had to do church discipline, both time in the last 5 years the result of the discipline was wonderful as the individuals repented and returned to the Lord. This happened because we were genuinely apart of each other and were functioning as the church.

Thanks for listening.
Bro Tony </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, I got mixed up on how this board is formatted.

This is Bro. James.

In every place where the word church is used above use the word "assembly".

Change the paradigm to: there is no universal assembly. See if the interpretation changes.

Whether anyone's assembly is true or not is not for me to say. The Lord knows them that are His.

The scripture says to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing; and Satan himself is become an angel of light. We ought to be wary--wise as serpents and harmless as doves.

The "universal assembly" is one of the earliest false doctrines to show up in "Christendom". Universal Bishop is right behind it. And most of the present day false doctrines came from the concept of the "the universal invisible/invisible assembly".

That is another reason we practice "closed communion."

Selah,

Bro. James

[ February 03, 2005, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Bro. James ]

 

Diane,

Tell your pastor that I am in total agreement with him. Your churches practice does not add anything to the Scripture in regards to the Lord's Supper. Closed communion clearly adds to what the Scripture teaches. Again, if that is what the autonomous local church desides for their practice that is up to them. They are not at liberty to say that the Bible teaches closed communion, because it doesn't.

I would ask those who practice closed communion (not close), do you require everyone who comes to join your church to be re-baptized? Even if they are from another Baptist church. If not, why not. If your table is closed to non-members, how is your church open to receive those who have not been baptized by your local body? If you require them to be re-baptized, by what Scriptural authority do you do such? It become frightening to me when our churches begin to require more of people than does the Scripture. That is the height of legalism. We must be careful not to require less than the Scripture for that is liberalism. The Bible is the final authority for what our local fellowship teaches, we discard the man-made, denominational-made requirements.

Bro Tony

 

Re-baptizers, no; administers of scriptural baptism--yes.

Examined, yes--very carefully--"bring forth fruits meet for repentence"--John the Baptist preaching in the wilderness. John the Baptist had an assembly too--until Jesus' ministry.

If your salvation experience is questionable so is your "baptism". If you were sprinkled by pedobaptists or immersed by followers of Joseph Smith or anyone else without proper authority, you will not be accepted into our fellowship--until you get right with God, and His Assembly.

If you have been a faithful member of an assembly of "like faith and practice" and can produce a letter of recommendation to that effect, the membership will usually vote to accept you as a brother/sister in Christ in full fellowship with the Body, without further examination.(Not a universal notion either)

The Bible is the ONLY authority for Faith and Practice--the NT Assembly is the only entity on earth with the commission given in Mt. 28. How does one get a universal commission? God did not put His Word on the tree in the town square--He gave His Word to His Assembly.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

I guess Bro James I don't see why you have a problem with joining other genuine Christians at the Lord's Table. The church is bigger than your small fellowship. You fear of the universal church is unfounded in this issue. The table does not belong to you or to your church---it belongs to the Lord and all that are His are welcome at His table. You may not see that now, but you will at the wedding feast of the Lamb, when you see that you and your church are not the only ones there. Until then may the Lord keep you close to Him, and I will let the Scripture be my authority not church polity, tradition or ritual.

Bro Tony

 

If your salvation experience is questionable so is your "baptism". If you were sprinkled by pedobaptists or immersed by followers of Joseph Smith or anyone else without proper authority, you will not be accepted into our fellowship.

This entire statement has nothing to do with anything I posted. I stated that there are those who call themselves the church and are not. You have compared apples and oranges.

If you have been a faithful member of an assembly of "like faith and practice" and can produce a letter of recommendation to that effect, the membership will usually vote to accept you as a brother/sister in Christ in full fellowship with the Body, without further examination.(Not a universal notion either)


Then your practice in the area of the ordinances is inconsistant and illogical. Either there are people outside your local fellowship who are genuine brothers/sisters in Christ or there are none that you acknowledge that to be true of. If they cannot share the table because they are not part of you, what makes them part of you because you voted them in.

Bro Tony
PS--you can drop the red herring of universalism because it is not the subject and I certainly don't believe in it. For the church or for salvation.

 

Why there is a problem? They are not part of that assembly. It destroys the picture of "one body", members fittly joined together; one loaf, etc.


Not paying attention to details--cost Moses the Promised Land--not heaven, but an earthly reward.

God said what He meant, and meant what He said; whether we believe or not is irrelevant.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

The question was put:

Do we require everyone who comes for membership to be rebaptized? The answer was: no. The rest of the dialogue was explaining what we do as a New Testament Assembly regarding new members.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Bro Tony... You hit the nail on the head, over and over again. Thanks, nothing else to add.

 

Tony, would you clarify your intent in this statement? Is it OK for a church, while acting autonomously, to add to (or take from) what the Scriptures teach? Thanks.

 

There is only one body. According to Paul in the book of Ephesians. His reference to the one body that is the church is not a reference to a local congregation. That would mean that only one congregation is the church. Your arguments sound much like that which was taking place in the church at Corinth, they said we are of Paul, some said we are of Apollos, some of Cephas, and some of Christ. Paul answered, "can Christ be divided?" Your belief that the Lord's Supper should be taken only in a closed fashion is literally dividing the Body of Christ. There is only one body and it is not only found in the church you attend.

Bro Tony

 

Thanks for the question. I do not think it is OK for a church to add to or take away from the Scriptures. I would not be involved with a church that I believe did this. That being said the reality of the autonomous Baptist church is that they have the freedom to practice their faith as they choose. I don't condone the practice of adding to the Scripture, but they have the right to be wrong. There are clearly practices in our modern churches that are not found in the Scripture. Most of these have to do with methodology rather than doctrine. If this issue was kept in that realm I would have no problem with it. It is when a pastor, church or denomination teaches something as biblical doctrine that is not, ie. closed communion.

Hope this clarifies,
Bro Tony

 

In this statement Bro James you and I are in complete agreement, also let me say that I appreciated what you wrote in the forum that dealt with eternal security.

The problem I have with your stand here is that God never said that the local church was to close the communion table to other born again believers in Christ. You again are attributing something to the Lord that He never said. That is a real problem.

Bro Tony

 

God never said that...

The scripture does not specifically say "trinity", but scripture certainly teaches that God is triune. "Trinity" has become a basic "litmus test" for orthodoxy, yet the word "Trinity" is coined.

Another example: what is the liquid to be used in "The Cup"? Some say wine; some say grape juice; some say "unfermented wine"--which seems a bit oxymoronic, since all wine, by definition has a level of fermentation. How about coconut milk?

Does it matter? Some say it should be "kosher".

I submit there are two basic reasons for the confusion:

1. Unregenerated persons have been allowed into the fellowship of New Testament Assemblies, thus defiling the Body(always local) with every wind of doctrine; and perverting "The Faith, once for all delivered unto the Saints", Jude 3.

2. These same assemblies have not practiced "assembly discipline" by allowing such practices to continue. Many "churches" are Christian in "name only"; and have long since fallen into apostasy or were "never of us" from the start.

"Closed Communion" is not an option; we have no authority to change the "commission"("...teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you"), nor the "pictur

 

Sorry, some of the last post got lost in cyberspace or inadvertantly snipped.

The last sentence is: nor the "picture: "This do in remembrance of me".

FINIS

Bro. James

 

Bro.James brings out a good point in considering all the things we rightly infer from study of scripture. I'm not convinced, however, that the church (local or as a whole) is given a command - even by inference - that positively instructs us not to allow brothers and sisters in Christ to partake of the Lord's Supper when in our midst.

It should be noted that for every analogy you can come up with to support closed communion, there is an equally good analogy supporting "close" or open communion.

For instance, if you call me your "brother," how can it be that I am not in your family? ...and therefore why should I not participate if I'm in your family?

And there are scriptures that support open communion also. I don't list them, because I don't believe that in this forum it will do any good - nor will it aid in our exhortation of each other in the Lord's work.

One thing's for sure though...I do not have enough knowledge based upon scripture to condemn the church that practices either open or "close" communion.

 

Your point in number 1 is true whether or not someone is a member of your local church. It is more than quite likely that you have unregenerated people on your church roles. That they are on your church roles allows them to partake. Ultimately you don't know their spiritual condition and therefore cannot be the one who decides if the partake. "let each man examine himself, and then let him partake"

Your point in number 2 is true and happens all the time, but is irrelavant as to whether to have open or closed communion. And whether a church practices open or closed communion is not a sign of entering into apostasy.

Finally, brother you continue to assert that the Bible and our Lord commands us to have closed communion by your statement, "observing all things whatsoever I command you". The problem with this use of this statement in this issue is that it does apply. Jesus never commanded us to exclude other brothers and sisters in Christ from His table. Be careful with using the analogy of the Bible does not use the word Trinity, it does not apply. The doctrine of the Trinity is clearly taught throughout the Scripture. Closed communion is not taught or practiced anywhere in the Scripture. It is taught and practice in the minds of those who have chosen to do it in their churches, although they have no Scriptural basis.

Bro Tony

 

I'm familiar with the practice of Church Discipline and even taking the harsh step of removing someone from fellowship with a church if necessary. I'd have to say, however, I've never heard of a Baptist church excommunicating someone. If this is like the Catholic form it means that person is totally cut off from the church in general and condemned to hell. Is that what you mean by excommunication?

 

USN-
You have hit on the illogical teaching of closed communion. You are called brother, but you are not welcome. If you are a child of God, you are welcome at His table. The problem with those who practice closed communion is they have made the Lord's Supper table theirs and not His. Jesus would never exclude his children from His table. The Lord's table belongs to Him and not to a local church or denomination.

Also, we can see how illogical and inconsistant this stand is as Bro James has already stated that his church would accept someone into membership who was not baptized in his church. If one ordinance is only to be observed within a closed local church setting then so should the other ordinance.

My name on the role of a local church who pratices closed communion makes me no more a brother than when my name was not on the role. I always find it amazing that a church could call me to be their pastor but I really can't have full communion with them until they vote me in. I believe I have full communion with every truly born again brother and sister in Christ. And I do that on the basis of what Christ did, not on whether my name is on their church role.

Bro Tony

 

SnN--You are correct here, biblical (Baptist) churches do not practice excommunication. I not sure what Rhetorician was referring to, maybe he can clarify. The Bible gives clear directions for church disciple, maybe someone would like to open another thread to deal with the difference between church discipline and excommunication.

Bro Tony

 

Familial connections and the Lord's Supper--

The Supper is not a picture of a family but rather The Body of Christ.

Every assembly is the body of Christ. There is no universal-invisible assembly nor universal-visible assembly of all believers which has ever assembled.

All of the saved are not necessarily members of an assembly, just as all those on the rolls of an assembly are not necessarily saved. The Lord knows them that are His. One could join every assembly in the world and still be lost. Being a member of an assembly is a "work" and has nothing to do with the salvation which is of the Lord.

Let us consider "baptism" for a moment:

Many religious folk think that the sprinkling of infants constitutes scriptural baptism. The scripture teaches to the contrary. So what does it matter--so long as every one is sincere?

A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

Selah,

Bro. James