Communion

Ed,

"Churched" is a term some use to describe a person under church discipline.

Bro Tony

 

'churched person'
The term used of a person which has been removed from the fellowship of the church.

 

Tom

doesn't Scripture tell us it is a church ordinance?

 

Good point, Tom. I think this would go a long way toward proving the sincerity of those who advocate closed communion.

Several years ago two Baptist preacher friends were discussing and debating close communion vs. closed communion. Sometimes these terms are used synonymously, but in this case one held that baptism and church membership were prerequisite to communion, but not that you had to be a member of the church that was serving communion. The other preacher believed communion was strictly closed to only members of the local church observing the ordinance. Said he, "What if we had a member who was a drunk and he came to visit your church, would you let him observe communion?" To which his friend replied, "What if he came to your church (where he is a member), would you let him observe communion?"...

...Which called for a lot of coughing and throat clearing...er...um. To argue for closed communion without church discipline is kind of self defeating.

 

buckster said:

In my view, yes. A local church ordinance, that is. That's why I hold that the local congregation is the guardian of the ordinances, and has the authority to decide who will participate. Although, members are to examine themselves, in order not to take it in an unworthy manner, the ultimate authority rests with the local church, not with the individual.

Tom Butler

 

rlvaughn said

I also don't think church discipline should be practiced separately from other ecclesiological practices. Instead of deciding to do it on the back end, let's also do it on the front end. Let's quit getting people down the aisle, all in favor say aye, and rush them up to the baptistry. New professing converts should be discipled, taught the basic obligations of membership, and observed for a while. While on a mission trip in Romania, a pastor told me a new convert must wait for two years before being granted full membership privileges. "We don't play church over here," he said. That's why his church of 150 members had 300 in its worship services.

Tom Butler

 

Tom, I agree that church discipline should not be practiced separately from other ecclesiological practices. I also agree with you against the pseudo-evangelism practices that rush to get people down the aisle and rush to get them in the church. But I can't agree with any such concepts as a person must wait two years, or graduate from new convert classes, etc., before they can join the church. THE reason for not baptizing a person is that we don't think he or she is converted. The reason for not accepting them into the church is that we don't think they're true disciples. When we make it an across the board policy for everyone, we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I agree that if we guard the front door, we won't have to send so many out the back door. But the back door of church discipline is sometimes necessary, even in the most careful churches. That's the kind of discipline the true story I mentioned illustrates, and I do think that a closed communion church, to be consistent, must exercise that kind of discipline when necessary. If they are unwilling, they make a mockery of closed communion before a knowing public.

 

Anyone familiar with the four 'spiritual' "Ds", as are found in some churches?
Ed

 

I support open communion but I agree with the previous statement that I don't think a concert is the right place to serve it.

 

rlvaughn said:

I think two years is two long as well. They did baptize the new convert within a few weeks, but gave him no voting privileges or any responsibilities for two years. I'll explain why they did it this way in Romania shortly. But if two years is two long, what is a good length of time? I'd like to hear how other churches handle it. Now, to Romania. During 40 years of communism, Evangelical Christians were low profile, but not completely underground. Dr. Joseph Tsan, the great Romanian Baptist leader, told me during a visit to my church in Kentucky that when someone would want to confess Christ as Lord, they tried to talk him out of it! Yes, you heard right. He explained to the convert that a public confession of faith could get him killed, beaten up, jailed, lose his job, lose his family. Now, said Dr. Tsan to the convert, do you still want to do this. He wanted the new Christian to count the cost. If he said yes after hearing the worst-case scenario, Dr. Tsan figured that the confession was real.
Even the strict probation period didn't always work. My young 18-year-old translator said that when Communism fell in 1989 and the tyrant Caucesceau was executed, three deacons disappeared. They were communist spies who had infiltrated the congregation. They were so convincing that they were ordained as deacons.
Back to our subject, we both seem to agree that some sort of discipling and orientation is necessary, the question is how long. And the other question I'd like to hear feedback on is how long a period of time should there be, if any, between the salvation profession and baptism?

Tom Butler

 

Sorry, I think I'm straying from the OP. I'll try to get back on track, but I am addicted to chasing rabbits.

Tom Butler

 

There used to exist such a thing as Training Union? Anyone know of it? I do not think it was pre-membership but more a class for new members. I agree a time of waiting would be good but have not thought much about how long might be sufice.

 

Tom I think it was you said something about the new members and not haveing full voting privilege. Since we are chasing rabbits. Can (or should) members also lose those from nonattendence?

 

Buckster, I never got that far in my conversation with that Romanian pastor, but given everything else he said, I'd think so. For instance, he never announced the Lord's Supper in advance (Closed Communion, by the way). He felt the members should always be spiritually prepared to observe it. So, I asked, what if they don't take it because of whatever reason--unconfessed sin, unresolved conflict, etc? The pastor said, if they to it very much we'll deal with that problem, too. Imagine this in an American church--disciplining members who decline to take communion unworthily. That pastor really meant it, when he said, "we don't play church over here."
Tom Butler

 

I have read some other churches with by-laws stating that a person not attending for 3 months loses voting privileges and if they don't show for a year they are removed from active members list.

 

Buckster, I think John McArthur's church will not allow young members voting privileges until they reach the age of 12. If I'm wrong, somebody correct that.
Andmaybe I should start a new thread, but I've wondered this--some folks call it communion, others the Lord's Supper. Are they the same thing, or two different things. Some call them sacraments, others ordinances. Are the different?
Release the hounds!!!

Tom Butler

 

Don't know anything about this site but it gives an answer:

http://www.challies.com/archives/000456.php

Reformed churches consider baptism to be a sacrament whereas Baptist churches regard it as an ordinance. The same holds true of the Lord's Supper. I am going to present a couple of definitions for each of those terms. The first is from Miriam-Websters and the second from Dictionary.com.

Ordinance:

1 a : a Christian rite (as baptism or the Eucharist) that is believed to have been ordained by Christ and that is held to be a means of divine grace or to be a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality b : a religious rite or observance comparable to a Christian sacrament

1. An authoritative command or order.
2. A custom or practice established by long usage.
3. A Christian rite, especially the Eucharist.
4. A statute or regulation, especially one enacted by a city government.

Sacrament:

1 a : an authoritative decree or direction : b : a law set forth by a governmental authority; specifically : a municipal regulation
2 : something ordained or decreed by fate or a deity
3 : a prescribed usage, practice, or ceremony

Christianity. A rite believed to be a means of or visible form of grace, especially:

* In the Eastern, Roman Catholic, and some other Western Christian churches, any of the traditional seven rites that were instituted by Jesus and recorded in the New Testament and that confer sanctifying grace.
* In most other Western Christian churches, the two rites, Baptism and the Eucharist, that were instituted by Jesus to confer sanctifying grace.
* A religious rite similar to a Christian sacrament, as in character or meaning.

 

More to the topic a piece on Lord's Super:

http://bmaweb.net/BMALibrary/othart/bryan_pr/l_supper.htm

 

In the Baptist Church Manual J.E. Cobb states that because LS and Baptisim are not essential for salvation they are not sacraments.

 

Okay, I'm in a learning mode here. When Jesus presided over the Passover meal, he gave instructions that as often as they had the meal from now on, they should do it in remembrance of Him. (Luke 22:19) So we have clear Scripture that the Lord's Supper is a memorial, for believers. Now, please give me the Scriptural basis for calling a sacrament, or a means of grace.

Tom Butler