John MacArthur and Communion

We do the same, I feel communion is exclusively for the body of Christ...

Did Jesus allow Judas to drink from the cup?

 

Pastor Larry,
Go reread the posts. I never used the word sad. You are mixing up posters. You asked a specific question in your last post. To me, the premise of the question is not in the Bible, however, here is an answer from my perspective, not in the Scripture, because in my opinion, the Scripture says "examine yourself". No need to go over that again, since we disagree.

But since you asked the question, if I was pastor of a church and was excluding people. Lets see, a man driving an 18 wheeler past our church stops on his way to somewhere in Tennessee to worship with us. Then here comes someone who is on the church roll who sits down next to him that hasnt darkened the door in 20 years. I have to decide which one gets communion. Guess which one gets served. You know, common sense goes a long way. Of course, in reality both would be served.

It is beyond me how anyone cannot see the flaw of a membership roll.

 

Sorry about the "sad" comment. I conflated a couple of posters. I apologize. The main point stands.

What do we disagree with about "examine yourself"?

And which of the two men would you exclude from communion? I would exclude the member who hasn't been there in 20 years. In fact, in my church, he would be excluded if he hasn't been here in three months.

What is the flaw of a membership roll? It is clearly a NT thing since there was a way to know who was in and who was out (cf. Acts 2; 1 Cor 5). What is your objection to it? I am not sure I am following your point there.

So, to be direct, would you let a person under church discipline partake of communion? Perhaps we should ask if you even practice church discipline.

 

Pastor Larry,
We agree with who we would exclude. Where we differ is that I would serve communion to the truck driver that was not a member. The flaw of the membership roll is the lack of church discipline. That aside, I still think it is unBiblical to exclude a Christian brother or sister from communion. Thanks for the civil post.

 

The ordinances of the church are to be done under the auspices of the local church. Where they take place isn't a primary concern. We're missing the issue here. If a family does LS or Baptism apart from the auspices of the local church, they are clearly broken off from the body of Christ. The early church's house to house practice of the ordinances were done under the auspice of the local church. No text exists that I'm aware of that shows the entire church was present at every administration of every ordinance. Certainly 1 Cor 11's directives regarding the LS refers to a "coming together" which would lend itself to a coming to a centralized place, but not exclusively so. Remember that the Lord's Supper is much akin to the Passover meal, which was done in the home. While not identical, we certainly have a covenental tie that would not make observing the LS outside the church walls anathema. Remember that the Passover was done under the auspice of the OT church, even though it was not done at the Temple.

Our Baptist heritage strongly encouraged the practice of family worship, an idea which has long been jettisoned (to the detriment of family and church). Family worship does not offend corporate worship across family lines - it complements it. We've also jettisoned something that was a precursor to coming to the table, and that's church discipline. That's already been pointed out.

Remember also that we are taking the default position that Acts 2:46 refers strictly to the LS. Some commentators (Calvin, for one, Gill allows for it also) believe that contextually we are referring to the practice of koinonia meals, or just the practice of eating together in addition to or instead of just the practice of LS.

To those who believe that v. 46 is strictly regarding the LS, how do you explain the consumption of meat? Just curious.

Soli Deo Gloria!

 

Here's my church's position. Which probably no one that has posted will agree with.
The Lord's Supper is a church ordinance. The pastor is in charge. The deacons help serve.
The pastor at the beginning invites those for whom Christ is Lord and Saviour and who have been scripturally baptized (baptized by immersion in a baptistic church) to participate after SELF-examination.

The elements are passed along, not handed out by the deacons.
People are not prevented, but left to their own self-examination.
I have never seen an obvious problem, though. The pastor would deal quietly later with a non-obvious problem, I presume.

Sidebar: baptistic would include Bible Churches, Plymouth Brethren, Evangelical Free, etc. Would not include most Churches of Christ, or a method other than immersion.

As far as shut-ins, the chronically ill, etc. They are still members of the church. Our church authorizes deacons to periodically visit them and participate in the Lord's Supper with them. Sure, it can be a case-by-case basis. It is a small gathering of the church. There are spiritual benefits for such a person in being able to partake, even though it is true that it does not save you or keep you saved. The deacon is doing it with them on the authority of the church. He often brings his family, having a small church service.

Karen

 

I was thinking this morning of yet a further reason for limited participation in communion. 1 Cor 5 says that the church should have judged, thereby ruling out only self-judgment. And it concludes with a command to not even eat with such a person who has been put out of the church. It is inconceivable that God would allow participation in communion together but not participation in regular meals together.

Therefore, communion should be withheld from anyone under church discipline. The only way you know that is by asking, or by limiting to those you know (i.e., closed communion).

 

Arguments from historical representation

The "theological" argument of Jesus administering communion to His disciples proving that communion must be administered by "official" church ministers and that the disciples being the future church leaders has any bearing upon the practice of the ordinance itself bears about as much weight as an argument that Jesus washing the disciples' feet requires then that foot-washing can only be administered and performed by ordained ministers of a local church and within its auspices.

 

AresMan, greetings,

My view is that the administrator of the Lord's Supper (the one who presides over the LS) does not necessarily have to be the "official" church ministers, as you put it.

Since it is a local church ordinance, the congregation may choose who presides. The reality is that it will usually be the pastor, but it could be a deacon or any designated church member. I don't think the scripture demands that he be ordained.

However, since the only example we have available has Jesus (the Shepherd [Pastor] and Bishop of our souls, says Peter) presiding, I think a case can be made that the adminisrator (presider) be the pastor.

I do think the scripture is clear that the LS always be observed in a corporate (congregational) setting, regardless of who presides.

 

First, I have not seen any one here argue that "official church ministers" must administer communion. (That is typically a Catholic position, I think.) The point most have made on this side is that it is a local church ordinance to be administered by the church.

Secondly, footwashing and communion are two entirely different things. An ordinance has four parts.

Sovereign authorization by Christ
Symbolism of saving truth.
Specific command for perpetuation in the church
Biblical evidence of historical fulfillment.

Foot washing does not qualify for any of those that I can recall. You might argue for the first, but I am not sure that would stand up.In any case, it doesn't seem to have the last three.

 

What constitutes a congregation?

What qualifies/quantifies/constitutes a "corporate (congregational) setting"? I am sure that a church of any size always has all "members" on the roster present whenever the Lord's Supper is observed. What percentage validates the gathering as official as opposed to "a few members from the local church"?

 

The biblical basis would be that the Lord's supper is to the NT as the passover was to the OT. Passover was originally done in households.

 

I would say it is a church meeting, where the church is called together to meet.

I think that "biblical basis" is incorrect because it assumes identity that I don't think exists. Passover and the Lord's Supper are not the same thing. But even at that, the passover was observed by the nation, not by individuals.

You still have no NT church occurrence of communion apart from the church.

 

I agree with JMac here. I have no problem with celebrating communion in my own home and, frankly, I think it' something my wife and I are going to talk about starting up! I think this is a great idea! If your church is like our church, celebrating Communion about once a quarter, you might feel as we do in that it should be celebrated more often!