John MacArthur and Communion

Sigh.

Joseph Botwinick and Pastor Larry,

I felt sorry that you two had to carry the load against such a host of brothers and sisters who unfortunately have it wrong about the Lord's Supper. You acquitted yourselves well, but it is sad that such mistaken views are so widespread.

If one looks closely, he will find that much of the error springs from the Schofieldian nonsense about the universal church and the Pentecost Day founding. Get that wrong and it'll lead you into all sorts of dispy mischief. But that's another thread.

Joseph, you and Pastor Larry have handled the scripture part very well. Let me deal with the historical aspect.

First some quotes:
“This opinion [open communion] perverts or rather destroys order and flatly contradicts the practice of the primitive Christians."
Willian Kiffin, great English Baptist leader in "A Sober Discourse of Right to Church Communion." 1681

"Open communion, practiced by liberals, is like living together without benefit of marriage. It may look loving but it lacks committment . . . Those who attend our churches and get offended by being denied communion are like house-guests who get offended when we don’t give them the utter run of the house. " ~ from a Lutheran pastor, quoted on Ben Stratton's Yahoo Group.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LandmarkSouthernBaptist/

"To the best of our knowledge, not a single implication is ever given in Scripture that the Lord’s Table is to be set anywhere except in the Lord’s House, and then only when unity exists. Not a hint is given that any beyond the church (the only sort of church taught in the Bible, the “local visible’ congregation) are ever invited to partake. Here, we suspect, is the real “hang-up;” a failure to understand the meaning of the word “church.” Surely such a person would not try to vote in the business meeting of a church where he was visiting, or move the reception of new members after an invitation in a service where he was only a visitor. Certainly communing at the Lord’s Table involves at least as much unity as voting in a business meeting!" R. Charles Blair

"The Lord's Supper is a church ordinance. It was meant to be observed and administered not by individual Christians at will, nor by irresponsible companies of believers, but by the churches of Christ as such. This statement is justified by the language of Paul to the Corinthians. I Cor. 10:16,17, 11:18,20,21,22,33,34. " Alvah Hovey 1820-1903 19th century leader of Northern Baptists.

In addition to filtering scripture passages through a dispy presupposition, supporters of open communion ignore the historical fact that open communion was an aberrant position 400 years ago.

 

I prefer to think it is because I have never been wrong.

But alas, I know it is because I do not have any books out there, or any radio evidence for the stupid things I have said.

 

Sorry, double post.

 

Thanks for your kind words Tom. Just to clarify, I am a dispensationalist (not tied heavily to Schofield) who believes in the invisible church, who is a very strong Calvinist who preaches the gospel and pleads with people to trust Christ for salvation. I am an independent, fundamental Baptist by conviction, who believes that all truly saved people will be part of the Bride, whether they are baptists or not.

And I believe that the ordinances are for the church. And if someone disagrees with me, they won't answer to me for it, so I can sleep easy at night.

 

Although I credited Ben Stratton's Yahoo Group as the source of one of the quotes in a previous post, it actuallly is the source for all of them.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LandmarkSouthernBaptist/

 

Pastor Larry, I'm in a church full of dispys and universal church folks, and we get along just fine,although our discussions are lively.

You obviously have avoided some of the other errors that we've seen espoused in this very thread.

Your defense of the proper observance of the Lord's Supper and who is charged with guarding the Lord's table was impressive.

 

Gershom asked Pastor Larry:
What about the Great Commission? Do you teach that this a command for all believers of just the leaders of the church?

Pastor Larry can answer for himself, but here's my take.

Jesus was speaking to the eleven disciples as members of the church he established three years earlier, meeting as a congregation. His commission was to his church of which the disciples were the charter members, and the other congregations which would come behind the Jerusalem assembly. The commission was not given just to the Apostles alone, because they died. It was not just given to the future leaders of the congregation. They and all the members eventually died as well. It was given to his churches and those who comprised them.

BTW, Jesus established his church when he chose the 12. The Pentecost-day founding of the church is based on a mis-reading of I Cor. 12:13. On that day, the Jerusalem church had everything it needed to carry out the Great Commission, except the empowerment promised by the Lord Jesus.

 

It is a command that essentially is about church planting. It is given to the apostles to start with, and to the whole church.

He also told believers to gather at his church. And so I made neither command. So when I say "gather at the church to celebrate communion" I am simply saying what He already said. Remember, 1 Cor 11 and Acts 20 both put communion in the context of gathering.

But "where" were we instructed to do it. I see no command about communion given to individual believers, but to the church. We are instructed to do it, but we are to do it properly.

Nothing. I already mentioned Philip (and the Philippian jailer). As I said, baptism is a harder case to make, but given the nature of baptism as a public profession, and given the transitional nature of Acts, I would not read too much into those events. A public profession is, by definition, public. It's purpose is to declare to the church repentance for the forgiveness of sins and the raising up to a new life.

Most Baptist churches would not accept a dad's bathtub baptism. We would not.

I have cited several, most of which you have ignored.

 

No one here has given any Biblical reference for using a man made church roll with unsaved people rampant on it as a standard for closed communion. SBC Pastor has the best post on the subject. The idea of closed communion is quite alive and well in the Catholic Church. It is also surprising that a Calvinist would be for closed communion since you are using a man made standard.

Also, the fact that Christ gave the Last Supper to twelve disciples is not a theological argument. It seems that there is much error in this thread, and yes, it is on the part of those of the closed communion myth.

I have with my own eyes seen the results of closed communion once in my 30 years as a Baptist. The pastor, on his own authority (which he did not have since its not a policy of my church), took the members to the front pews and left the non members in back as they watched the rest partake of the Lords supper. One couple, who was about to join never came back. Closed communion is mean spirited, divisive, and destroys church unity. As long as I am able to speak and have a say, it will never rear its ugly head in the church I attend.

 

You saying Jeus started his Church when he started his public ministry? Is this s separate Church from the Church of today? What about Mat 16 where he says I will build my Church as in future tense?

I don't follow this. Christ had not died and risen yet you're implying there was a Church? Is this what you contend?

 

Are you saying non believers should be included in Communion?

 

Acts 8:26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert. 27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, 28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. 29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. 30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. 32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: 33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. 34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

What hermenuticle structure is used when we base a command of God on presidence alone?

If it is a command of God to baptize only in the church under church leadership alone then based on presidence in other parts of scripture did Philip go against Gods will when he baptized the ethiopian?

First century presidence is equal to a command of God not to be broken? Whos' school of hermenutics teaches this?

And if it is not actually a command of God then I would be fearful to be so irreverent as to represent it as such. Godly fear will straighten out many theologies and divisions.

Matt 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

To say that God only sanctions church ordinances when local assemblies schedule them is legalistic hogwash that Jesus addressed clearly. The purpose of the Lord's supper is to remember his blood and broken body. And to say that two or more christians cannot gather to remember this unless it has been approved and scheduled by the church is very much like the Roman Catholic Church. We all have the right and privilage to go "boldly before the throne". We do not need permission or sanction by church leaders to do so. This boldness does extend to itself in prayer, praise, scripture, the Lords' Supper, and baptism. And when this is done in sincerity and in the name and rememberance of Jesus Christ then our Lord and Savior himself sanctions it. What a shame a pastor wouldnt go to the sick and bed ridden and conduct the Lord's Supper. That is very sad.

 

Amen. :thumbs:

I completely agree. I find it very sad as well.

 

First of all, to LeBuick, no one ever said unbelievers should take communion. Why would one want to? If you read the posts, the Bible says examine yourself. Those who take the Lord's Supper frivilously accept Gods wrath.

For those of you who want to exclude Christian brothers and sisters from communion, the Catholic Church has many openings, as does the Church of Christ.

 

I've had communion in a truck stop,a hospital, a friend's house, and my own house... as well as in churches and fellowship halls.

The important thing is that Christ is the focus, period. As far as where... non issue.

 

Yes. When Jesus chose his disciples at the beginning of his ministry, he chose the material which made up the first church. This was the church he said he will build. It had a Head, it had a treasurer, it received offerings which Judas kept track of (and stole some). It had the two ordinances--baptism, which his disciples administered. It had the Lord's Supper and it had a Great Commission. It had the gospel of repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, and it had power, since the demons were subject to those he sent out as witnesses.

The ordinances have been committed to those local assemblies, of which Baptist churches come closest to the church Jesus established.

When Jesus ascended, the power went with him. That's why he told them to wait until they received power, which we know came ten days later from the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. The church which Jesus established was replicated with other congregations established in Judea and then in other parts of the world. That has been the pattern for 2,000 years.