Open, close, closed Communion?

[saturneptune]

I understand your position. However, can the qualified observers extend beyond what is symbolized by the "unleavened bread"? Can it extend beyond the "whole" which is subject to discipline by the observing church?

It seems odd to me that those who hold to closed communion and use the church discipline argument will in most cases allow some to partake of the Lord's Supper who is on the rolls but has not been attending or supporting the church in tithe or ministry. No where in the Bible does it say that the standard for participation in the Lord's Supper is the local church roll, especially when that church roll is full of people who act more like lost people than saved. That is an artificial, man made standard, the church roll. The Bible does not say we should examine ourselves within the framework of the roll, it says we should examine ourselves.

If in fact we should examine ourselves, and if we take the Bible's warning seriously about taking the Lord's Supper in a frivolous manner, then those on the rolls who are not supporting the church know who they are and should exclude themselves. If they do not, my guess is the local church that practices closed communion will not exclude them either.

The bottom line to this is that closed communion encourages participation of those who are not or should not be in good standing with the local church, and discourages Christians on another roll who are walking close with the Lord, from taking it. Does that make any sense?

If someone not on the rolls takes the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner, the Lord will deal with him or her. Each local church is autonomous, and can decide how they want it administered. We have no policy written in our by-laws, but practice open.

I have to compliment you on the way you handle closed communion. Handling it in a unthoughtful manner can cause much harm to a local church. You have some of the best reasoning for closed I have read. Also, I really enjoy your posts.