John MacArthur and Communion

And if you are a dispensationalist you do not believe the church age started until pentecost.

 

Sorry PL, just an attempt to lighten what I knew would be a divisive topic.

 

Lets see, Baptist churches come closest to the church Jesus established. What do they have in common? Is it the hundred or so different type of Baptist divisions that exist today? Is it the 1-2% of the local membership that helps carry out the Great Commission? Is it the 60-70% of the local members that exhibit that great witness by not coming to church for decades? Is it the 20% that sit on sunday morning pews and do nothing else? Is it their great witness?

If not that, is it that constant bickering within local congregations that cause disunity and sometimes breaking apart of fellowship? Over vital issues like building projects?

Is it the bickering and humanistic politics at upper levels of a given denomination?(SBC for example).

One could go on and on. Why yes, how similar the two churches are. Back to the original point. Communion to people at home is fine, as is open communion.

Jesus giving the Lord's Supper to the 11 or 12 is not a theological argument, in fact one cannot prove that was a church.

Once again, to use a man made church role as a standard for the Lords Supper is humanistic, Arminian type thinking to put it nicely. As I said, there are openings at the Catholic Church and Church of Christ.

 

Ive never seen an SBC church that practiced this closing of the Lords' Supper.

 

Communion

We gathered back at 4:00 pm yesterday at the church for our yearly appointed time for communion. There was not too many of us for we have church in the morning to do up our work and then return at 4 for communion. We use the "fruit of the vine" in our services. We first meet with one of the "called" preachers comes to the stand and preaches for us and then we recess until we can prepare the table for the communion. We also practice "feet washing" at this time also so while preparing the table the water is brought in with the pitcher and towels long enough to gird around us. After recess then I come to the stand and alway preach on 1 Corth: 11 and John: 13 and ususally the death and burial and resurrection of our Lord. The Scriptures where He said He is the "bread that came down from Heaven that a man may eat thereof and never die". After my sermon, I call all the ordained authority around the table after washing our hands and we have prayer and one "called" Elder will lead us and we ask God to bless the bread and fruit of the vine to represent His broken body and His blood. After prayer then I break off peices of bread and hand a large peice to each ordained brother and they break into smaller peices and place on the table. I then have them take their seats and call the deacons and their wives around the table. I pour the "fruit of the vine into cups" (small individual cups and one large one in center of tray for those who do not like the small cups and want to stay with the old time way). The Deacons first serve me and then they serve themselves and their wifes do the same. I then instruct them to go in pairs and sisters serve all the sisters and brothers serve all the brothers. After making sure everyone is served, I then come back to the stand and quote from John 13 about the washing of feet and instruct everyone to prepare for the feet washing by removing their shoes. The deacons first give me a pan of water and a towel and I proceed to pick out a brother to wash His feet and he washes mine. We have several pans and towels so there are several going at the same time. During the breaking of the bread and taking of the bread and "fruit of the vine" we have complete silence but during the feet washing we sing songs. After all is done, I inquired to make sure everyone has washed someone's feet and had theirs washed and then as the Scriptures we leave the building singing a song of Zion.
I then take all the bread and "fruit of the vine" that is left over and take it home and bury it in the ground because I feel we asked God to bless it all to represent the body and blood of our Lord and deserves the respect to not be used for anything else or just thrown away.
This is a little long but thought you might like to see how the Old Regular Baptist do it and how it compares with how you do it, peace :love2:

We believe that it is a ordinances of God place in the church of communion and feet washing. Also it is a closed communion but never knew it to offend anyone. Maybe it is because I live in a small community and everyone knows how we practice, I have seen the communion held up long enough for someone who came forth and offered themselves to the church for membership for the brethren to baptize them and then they too can partake with us. We believe communion was put in the church for the church.

Sorry I failed to read the OP and I guess I am a little off topic but saw what some of the others were posting.

 

Why would a church roll be rampant with unsaved people? If that is true, then the church has bigger problems than communion.

Closed communion is not practiced in most Catholic churches. I could walk into most of them and take communion with them. I think some might be confused on this matter.

Most who practice is experience just the opposite. However, I don’t practice closed communion so I don’t know. I can see how you would describe it as mean spirited and divisive because that seems to fit your personality. Your posts seem very mean-spirited and divisive. You tend to see life through you own colored glasses and that is unfortunate that you have such a negative view, and that you don’t use any Scripture to support it.

Do you know of any place where communion is open in Scripture? Where it is served outside the assembly? Perhaps you can do what no one else here has done, and show biblical support for the position you espouse.

 

I don't know of anyone who is claiming this. Do you? The regulative principle generally falls along the lines that whatever the church does must be based in Scripture. We are limited to worship in the pattern revealed in Scripture. We may do in worship only what the Scripture allows. This is contrasted with the normative principle, that we may do whatever the Scripture does not forbid.

I don't recall Jesus addressing this anywhere. Perhaps you could show us where. The verse you listed certainly doesn't address the ordinances.

However, if you read the context, it is in teh context of the church, particularly discipline. Do you believe church discipline should be practiced apart from the assembled body? Can two or three people gather together and pronounce church discipline on someone at a backyard barbeque? Of course not. And that is what Matt 18 is talking about.

I don't recall anyone saying that you cannot remember the blood and body of Christ whenever you want. The church does not need to approve that. But that isn't the issue. The issue is the ordinance of communion.

Do you know of any place in Scripture where it is observed apart from the local church? If you do, please post it so we can discuss it.

I am not sure why that keeps getting overlooked.

Being driven by Scripture, I am not overly concerned with your sense of propriety and sadness. I will be perfectly willing to interact with Scripture, should you have any to contribute. So far, I think I am the only one here who has posted Scripture in support of my position, referencing passages in 1 Cor 11 and Acts 20 that specifically say that communion is observed "when you come together." Why cannot your side bring forth any Scripture?

I think what we are seeing here is that many of you have a theology about communion but no biblical basis for it. You can't tell us why you would serve communion outside the church. You can't tell us if you would ever exclude anyone, and if so, why. And that should be very troubling to you. I am not greatly concerned with how you practice communion. I am greatly concerned that you have no biblical basis. You are arguing from emotion ... that sick and bed ridden should be able to have it. You haven't said why they should. You haven't said what it does for them. Many of you see to have no scriptural basis. That is very troubling. And you turn around and accuse me of something (being very sad) because I believe we should follow what the Bible prescribes. That seems a strange turn of events.

 

How would you keep them from it?

Because they, like Catholics (and apparentlys ome here) have a wrong view of communion. They take it because they think it is a religious ceremony. They don't take it remembrance.

This is certainly true, but is an unbeliever really concerned about that?

Would you deny communion to anyone under any circumstances? Is there any line that you would draw?

 

Well, I thought I made a pretty good argument from the scriptures. I didn't just think it up. This was the predominate position of Southern Baptists 200 years ago. And those who grew up in the Souith, particularly Kentucky, Tennnessee and Arkansas were taught this as accepted truth.

Where do you think the practice of having the Lord's Supper as a congregation came from? It came from the first Lord's Supper established by Jesus, presided over by him, with an explanation of the meaning. Even in our own congregation, our pastor reads from those scriptures each time we observe it. The scriptures he reads form the basis for our practice.

Paul reinforced it in I Cor. 11. Paul corrected the church at Corinth, and quoted Jesus as the basis for that correction. Paul noted that when the congregation "came together" for the Lord's Supper they were doing some things wrong. Again, they came together. Paul appealed to the pattern set at the first Lord's Supper as the standard of practice.

 

Of course, I disagree. I'm familiar with the story you told and it is true. But anecdotes do not determine the validity of closed communion. Our own congregation does not practice closed communion. I think it should, but we're not divided over it. It's sort of a tacit agreement that since we don't all see it alike, we'll not make it a point of contention.

My appeal is to scripture, but when I cite William Kiffin,the great leader of English Baptists, who endorsed closed communion in 1681, don't you think his opinion should be given some weight? His entire treatise was filled with scripture after scripture.

 

Are you suggesting that this portion of scripture has no bearing on us today, or it only applies to church discipline?

It doesnt get over looked at all. In fact I addressed it when, I ask if presidence of action is equivilent to thus saith the Lord? Again where is the scripture that drove them to do this or command from God as written by Paul or one of the Apostles?

So I am asking now, where in scripture does it say that the church is only the church on Sunday morn at 11:00 am, Sunday night at 7:00 pm or wednesday night at 7:00 pm? When several church members visit a sick church member in the Nursing Home has the church not gathered together? How many church members does it take to be in attendence to constitute a church gathering. If a few members gather at a nursing home with sister Sue Anne hasnt the church gathered together since they are all part of the church?

The problem I have with your theology is what you seem to constitute as a church gathering.
Why would any set of church leadership not sanction a visit to the sick and conduct the Lords Supper? Why withhold it from them. If two or three isnt enough then gather as many of the church as you can and take them all to the nursing home.

In the end you have failed to prove that God only approves of conducting the Lords supper on Sunday Morn and Night or Wed Night within the walls of only one building. The church can meet any where any time with any number.

As a pastor I will take the Lords' Supper to the sick and the lame.
And by the way if you want to stick to context then the context of 1 Cor 11 is not that the Lord supper be done only when the church gathers as a whole, the context is the irreverent manner in which they conduct it. So by your standard this does not apply to your point.

 

"Pastor" Larry,
Since you seem to turn terms for closed communion like mean spirited and divisive and call individuals those names, and since you try to defend close communion, it seems strange that you do not practice it. Why would you defend something you do not practice?

As to your verses you site, 1 Cor 17 Paul says he has no prasie for the congregation, for the meeting does more harm than good. It seems that fits the description of closed communion. It does more harm than good. The next few verses, which you use against the posts for giving communion in a home, it seems you have taken out of context. These verses are talking about people in the old church that were turning the Lords Supper into a drunken, gluttonous party. Paul was saying for that to remain at home. How you turn that into you cant serve communion at home for the sick is beyond me.

If you read further, the Bible says examine yourself. And back to my original question to you. Give me a Bible reference that uses a church roll as a standard for the Lords Supper. Not really interested in a verse that is out of context.

It seems your posts could avoid calling names of people who post. If you cannot back up your position with facts, try another subject.

Oh and by the way, the Catholic Church is closed communion.

 

So I clearly understand, what do you guys mean by "closed" communion?

 

The context is church discipline. That’s all I was pointing out.

I think what drove them to do it was the command of God. Why else would they do it?

That shows a misunderstanding of the issue. Scripture tells us to meet. It doesn’t tell us when. That is the regulative principle.

No, you said it yourself. It is several church members visiting a sick church member. That is different than the church gathered for worship.

No, the church gathering is a gathering of the church, not a few people getting together.

If the church decides to have a church service at the nursing home, I am fine with that. Rent a room, or reserve one, and have a service there. But I would not conduct the Lord’s Supper outside of the gathered church because I see no scriptural basis for it, and I see scriptural evidence against it.

Yes, if the church meets. But the “church” has to meet, not just a couple of people in the church. And Sunday morn/night or Wed night is irrelevant.

Without NT warrant, however.

[qutoe]And by the way if you want to stick to context then the context of 1 Cor 11 is not that the Lord supper be done only when the church gathers as a whole, the context is the irreverent manner in which they conduct it. So by your standard this does not apply to your point.[/quote]It is actually both if you read it. They were properly assembling to do it. They were improperly celebrating it by celebrating with division.

In the end you have no scriptural basis for your position. Every bit of Scripture given supports my position. And that is significant. Furthermore, I would question whether or not you are fitting in with Baptist distinctives with your position.

 

What's with the quotes?

First you used the words against me and those who hold my position. In fact, you said I was sad as a pastor because of my biblical convictions.

Secondly, I have defended close communion, not closed communion, although I could very easily defend closed communion. But that is not relevant to this discussion. This issue about who has the authority to observe the ordinances of the church. I maintain that the church does.

First, it is 1 Cor 11, not 17. Second, the context addresses the sin of the assembled church, and points out that the ordinance was observed when they were gathered. That was apparently the purpose of the gathering. What Paul says should stay at home is meals where people are gluttons. He does not say that communion should take place at home. I think you need to go back and reread that.

I haven't yet given a verse out of context. 1 Cor 11 is about communion. That is the context. Second, I have not argued that the church roll is the standard for communion. That isn't this discussion. If you want to discuss that, that is fine.

I didn't call you any names. I said your posts seem that way. I don't believe I said you were that way. I said it seems that way, that you are viewing things very negatively. You have certainly been very harsh with me. And that is unfortunate.

I have used Scripture. I have shown that every occurrence of communion in the church is in teh assembled church. I have shown that the Scriptures show the church gathering for "the breaking of bread." I have used the facts of Scripture. You have not been willing to interact with them in any substantive way.

Don't they at weddings allow all participants to partake? I think there are also some other exceptions. But that's not all that important here.

Listen, friend, I would love to have a civil discussion with you, but I am not interested in the intensity of your language towards me. Calling me sad, insinuating something about my being a pastor ... those kinds of things are not what I am willing to engage. I hope that your view is not as negative as it seems. Perhaps it is just the topic.

 

That's what I thought, never heard that expression...

What about, "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."

I know this verse is not specifically for non believers but wouldn't a non believer or unrepentant sinner be unworthy?

 

Yes.

Because baptism and teaching are primarily church functions. This is why Paul was able to say he had evangelized an area because he had planted a church there (Rom 15).

But I didn’t make that rule. I think that is what Scripture teaches, and you have been unable to show anything different.

I notice you also appeal to reason. I believe we should appeal to revelation. There is no doubt that your position has some reason to it. But I believe we should go by revelation, what God has said. And so far you have shown nothing in support of your position from God.

My window is open. Show me a command. Show me an example.

Not sure what you think my perception of the church is. I think “WE” are the church. Did you think I believe otherwise? You should have been here the last few weeks. I have been talking about the church in our Sunday night Bible study. Then you could have heard what I actually believe.

Not at all. In fact, I am the one who brought them up and said that they give evidence against my position on baptism. There is no such evidence against my position on communion.

Why are you so exercised about this? There seems to be a real hostility here about what is really a non-essential topic. Perhaps I am misreading the black on blue here, but I am not a big fan of ratcheting up the level of conversation like this. Can we not have a civil discussion about it?

 

I think the term is being used a little loosely here. Typically there are three positions.

1. Open communion -- anyone may partake
2. Closed communion -- only members of a particular local church can participate.
3. Close communion -- members of a particular local church, along with visitors who are members of churches of "like faith and practice" may participate.

Saturn has changed terms I think. I am not quite sure what he is accusing me of. We practice close communion here, though I could be persuaded to practice closed communion. If others do it differently, I will not blast them for it. We simply disagree. I think open communion is completely out. The other two I could support both.

For those who disagree with me, I have asked a couple of times and am interested in your answer: Is there any circumstances under which you would deny a person communion?