Open, close, closed Communion?

[Dr. Walter]

Whether a church chooses to practice open or closed communion is their business.

Whether I choose to be a part of either is my business. I prefer attending a church practicing open communion available to all believers.

Whose table is it? Yours? or the Lord's? If the Lord's Supper is nobody's business but yours or the church administrating it, then what business did Paul have telling them how the church at Corinth observed it was wrong, so wrong that Paul said "this is not the Lord's Supper"?

I would assume that the Lord had instructed Paul as to what is and is not the proper obervance of His Supper! So it does matter who participates and how it is observed or else Paul wasted his breath in I Corithians 5; I Cor. 10:15-21 and I Cor. 11:17-30

 

[Jerome]

ThoNote Paul's presence here at the Church of Troas(?) for the purpose of "breaking bread." In verse 11, does it not say "he" (Paul) had "eaten"?

Where does it say that Paul or any of the brethren in his company paricipated in the Lord's Supper in Acts 20?

Eagle, the alibi of those who imagine that that church excluded Paul from communion is that Paul was only having a mid-sermon snack break in verse 11:laugh:

 

[Eagle]

Thanks Jerome, for the assist -- and for the levity!

It seems pretty evident that Paul had "broken bread" and had "eaten", by verse 11 of Acts 20.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Thanks Jerome, for the assist -- and for the levity!

It seems pretty evident that Paul had "broken bread" and had "eaten", by verse 11 of Acts 20.

No, there is no mid-sermon snack break but the early Christians usually observed an agape feast just before they partook of the Lord's Supper. How do you know that this was not the agape feast that preceded the Lord's Supper? Since Paul is the author of 1 Cor. 5 and he defines the bread as the church body and thus a church ordinance wouldn't it be more consistent with his own teaching that he partook only of the Love feast aspect as both aspects would be regarded as breaking bread. The terms "broke bread" are used many times in scripture for merely a meal (Acts 27:35). Jesus broke bread with the two on the road to Emmaeus (Lk. 24:11) but was that the Lord's Supper?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Eagle, the alibi of those who imagine that that church excluded Paul from communion is that Paul was only having a mid-sermon snack break in verse 11:laugh:

The additional descriptive "and had eaten" is never used with the Lord's Supper but according to JFB and Robertson refers to the common meal or love feast. The combination of terms indicates that he simply blessed the meal and ate. Furthermore, it does say the "when he came back up the church (brethren) broke bread.

At any rate don't you think it is a stretch to base a doctrine upon verse 11 when you have the same writer speaking of the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 5 in terms that eliminate those outside the church body???

 

[Eagle]

Heh heh, Allan, you crack me up. You know what hot buttons to push to drag me in, too.

We could turn the question you asked around and ask why I'm the only one who cited Matthew and Mark's gospel, and I think I'm the only one who used John's account, as well.

Of course, I don't believe the accounts conflict, but sometimes I don't know how to resolve what seem to be differences. Maybe Jerome could offer his thoughts, since he cited the Luke account and none others.

Hey Tom, how you doin'?

You are right in the quote above, we have here an apparent conflict. How to resolve?

Firstly, I think that both due to a desire to be careful with God's Word, and due to a fear that some might say we are 'twisting' to make it fit, or not 'literally interpreting,' etc., that we are way too hesitant sometimes to simply let the clear understanding make the case, and then 'make' or 'allow' the subordinate understanding be just that - subordinate. Therefore:

Secondly, the clear understanding, as you cited from more than one place, is that Judas left. The subordinate understanding is that 'figuratively' (oh no! don't use that word!) Judas did eat at Jesus table, and was numbered among Christ's followers - whether actually present at that specific time or not. Of course, I suppose it possible that Judas returned to the table by the time of Jesus' statement - tho I think highly unlikely.

I only bring this in to illustrate, that it is OK to interpret scripture in this way. It is simple and easy, not strained or convoluted. No contradictions, everything compatible. In fact, I propose that this is how we must interpret scripture - it is a part of letting scripture interpret scripture.

As to it's pertinence or relevance to my previously stated position on Communion - it is moot. Christ did not then, nor does his ecclessia (body) now, use force to prevent any from eating. We teach & warn. We do not post sentries at the table, nor do I think, giving interviews, etc., is biblical. We maintain 'due diligence' so to speak, by clearly teaching & warning - the rest is up to the individual. God expects 'due diligence' from His church, not precise, exact control over who "eats". Honestly, we kid ourselves if we think that whatever interviews, scrutiny, etc., we bring to bear - that we will actually prevent all who are "unworthy" of partaking.

That said, I respect those who have undertaken these steps for what they are intending - I just think it is an unnecessary burden on all involved (extra-biblical), and can perhaps paint us as weird, odd, extreme, cultish, etc., unnecessarily.

I realize the world may (and does) view us this way anyway, and that we say "we don't care" what they think, however, there is no need to unneccessarily add to this, and possibly cause detriment to our cause - without biblical mandate.

 

[Eagle]

The additional descriptive "and had eaten" is never used with the Lord's Supper but according to JFB and Robertson refers to the common meal or love feast. The combination of terms indicates that he simply blessed the meal and ate. Furthermore, it does say the "when he came back up the church (brethren) broke bread.

At any rate don't you think it is a stretch to base a doctrine upon verse 11 when you have the same writer speaking of the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 5 in terms that eliminate those outside the church body???

Hello Dr. Walter,

Actually, it does not say, "the church (brethren) broke bread". Rather, it says, "When he [Paul] therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten..." (KJV)

Also, what I find a "stretch" as you say, is to base a doctrine on an imperfect illustration (interpretation) of a Hebrew metaphor. I understand that there is more evidence for your position - but what you keep hammering is this metaphor - which makes me a little uneasy, at the least. Bring more substance. What you are holding forth is what I would call subordinate, corroborative, complementary, etc., evidence -- not the meat or main support evidence.

 

[SaggyWoman]

However, I believe the strongest point is the symbolism of the bread representing not the family of God, nor the kingdom but the church body (1 Cor.10:15) and in particularly the actual church administering the supper (I Cor. 5:7).

The interesting thing of your comment is that Jesus started the Lord's Supper with his disciples, who then did not attend one local church with each other, but were spread out. I would not think that denying any of them in participating in a communal Lord's supper would then thereafter be appropriate.

 

[Jerome]

No, there is no mid-sermon snack break but the early Christians usually observed an agape feast just before they partook of the Lord's Supper. How do you know that this was not the agape feast that preceded the Lord's Supper?

J. R. Graves, Old Landmarkism:

Eutychus, falling asleep, fell out of the window from the third story, and was taken up dead. Paul went down and resuscitated him. It was after this event that the eleventh verse, above quoted, comes in. Now, that this was not the Lord's Supper, but refreshment prepared for Paul after his six hours' speaking

this meal was a breakfast

Paul did not eat very heartily, but only lightly, it does not surprise us after the fatigue of preaching six hours

 

[rsr]

John Gill:

when the disciples came together to break bread; not to eat a common meal, or to make a feast, or grand entertainment for the apostle and his company, before they departed; but, as the Syriac version renders it, "to break the eucharist", by which the Lord's supper was called in the primitive times; or as the Arabic version, "to distribute the body of Christ", which is symbolically and emblematically held forth in the bread at the Lord's table. Now on the first day of the week, the disciples, or the members of the church at Troas, met together on this occasion, and the apostle, and those that were with him, assembled with them for the same purpose; the Alexandrian copy, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions read, "when we were come together"; Paul and his company, together with the church at Troas; for it is plain from hence that there was a church in this place, not only by disciples being here, but by the administration of the Lord's supper to them; and so there was in after ages.

and had broken bread and eaten; administered the Lord's supper, and also eat for his bodily refreshment:

and talked a long while: about the ordinance and the doctrines of the Gospel, and spiritual experience, and such like divine things:

 

[Dr. Walter]

Hello Dr. Walter,

Actually, it does not say, "the church (brethren) broke bread". Rather, it says, "When he [Paul] therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten..." (KJV)

Also, what I find a "stretch" as you say, is to base a doctrine on an imperfect illustration (interpretation) of a Hebrew metaphor. I understand that there is more evidence for your position - but what you keep hammering is this metaphor - which makes me a little uneasy, at the least. Bring more substance. What you are holding forth is what I would call subordinate, corroborative, complementary, etc., evidence -- not the meat or main support evidence.

In another post, I tried to demonstrate that the Lord's Supper was instituted with only church members. In the Great commission as stated in Mathew 28;19-20 and as applied first in Acts 2:41-42 there is a specific order; (1) go with the gospel; (2) baptize those who receive the gospel; (3) add them to the church body; (4) teach them to OBSERVE all other things.

The Great Commission command is impossible to complete outside of church membership and this is confirmed in Acts 2:41 where "added unto them" is inserted between baptism and stedfastly continuing in the apostles doctrine. The point is that observing all other commands does not precede gospel conversion or baptism or church membership but comes afterwards.

I then pointed out the repeated langauge of 1 Corinthians 11 "when ye come togther" or "in the church" in regard to the Lord's Supper. I also pointed the language of I Cor. 5:7 "YE ARE UNLEAVENED" had reference to "THE WHOLE LUMP" out of which a member in the church at Corinth was to be "purged out" so that the "whole lump" becomes a "new" lump. I further pointed out that the bread represents the church in 1 Cor. 10:15-16.

Finally, if we believe the church is a local body of baptized believers joined together to carry out this commission and if the commission is give to such a church then the Lord's supper both by symbolism and by commission is a church ordinance rather than a "Christian" ordinance.

So as you can see, I have not just relied upon symbolism but rather symbolism comes into to be a support.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The interesting thing of your comment is that Jesus started the Lord's Supper with his disciples, who then did not attend one local church with each other, but were spread out. I would not think that denying any of them in participating in a communal Lord's supper would then thereafter be appropriate.

I beleive Acts 1:21-22 demonstrates they attended a travelling assembly from the time of John the Baptist until Acts 2:1. The three thousand on Penteocost was not the origin of the church but rather were "added unto" the already existent church in Acts 2:1 who were the same assembly conducting a business meeting to install a person into the "church" office of apostle in Acts 1:15-30 (I Cor. 12:28).

 

[Dr. Walter]

J. R. Graves, Old Landmarkism:

Well, we find the same thing in Acts 27:35 and no one imagines that was the Lord's Supper he was partaking:

Ac 27:35 And when he had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to God in presence of them all: and when he had broken it, he began to eat.

 

[Dr. Walter]

John Gill:

Well, Dr. Gill was a great interpreter but great interpreters make great mistakes. The Lord's Supper is not a "he" ordinance but a church ordinance. Does Gill suppose that Acts 27:35 is also the Lord's Supper??????

 

[rsr]

No, because it obviously was not a gathering of the church. Unlike the earlier instance.

 

[Eagle]

The interesting thing of your comment is that Jesus started the Lord's Supper with his disciples, who then did not attend one local church with each other, but were spread out. I would not think that denying any of them in participating in a communal Lord's supper would then thereafter be appropriate.

I do not understand where this statement comes from. Most, if not all, the disciples were still in Jerusalem, in the upper room, at Pentecost, attending "church,"near as I can tell. On what basis do you say,"...who then did not attend one local church with each other..."?

 

[Eagle]

J. R. Graves, Old Landmarkism:

I would also add that tho Graves may have been right about many things - he certainly would have had an "agenda" to ensure a "closed communion" interpretation, in order to mesh with, and support, his other Landmark positions.

 

[Tom Butler]

I then pointed out the repeated langauge of 1 Corinthians 11 "when ye come togther" or "in the church" in regard to the Lord's Supper. I also pointed the language of I Cor. 5:7 "YE ARE UNLEAVENED" had reference to "THE WHOLE LUMP" out of which a member in the church at Corinth was to be "purged out" so that the "whole lump" becomes a "new" lump. I further pointed out that the bread represents the church in 1 Cor. 10:15-16.

One other point to add: The "lump" cannot be the Universal Church, since purging the leaven from the U-church will result in that person losing his salvation. If salvation places one in the U-Church, expelling one from the U-church necessitates taking their salvation from them.

Oh, that's crazy, one might say. No, I'm just taking an argument to its logical conclusion.

The only lump from which leaven can be purged is the local lump, not the universal lump. The U-lump, if it existed, must remain divided and error-filled, since there is no mechanism for dealing with the dividers, troublemakers, and false prophets.

 

[Dr. Walter]

One other point to add: The "lump" cannot be the Universal Church, since purging the leaven from the U-church will result in that person losing his salvation. If salvation places one in the U-Church, expelling one from the U-church necessitates taking their salvation from them.

Oh, that's crazy, one might say. No, I'm just taking an argument to its logical conclusion.

The only lump from which leaven can be purged is the local lump, not the universal lump. The U-lump, if it existed, must remain divided and error-filled, since there is no mechanism for dealing with the dividers, troublemakers, and false prophets.

Amen! The body of Christ metaphor has been abused and hijacked by the U-church advocates. The U-church advocates must violate the rules that govern the proper use of metaphors in order to make it fit their concept.

 

[saturneptune]

The bottom line is that each local church decides whether it is open or closed communion. However one views the matter, there is no problem finding a local Baptist church that believes like you do, as they are all over the map.

Despite all the misapplied verses, common sense goes a long way. How can anyone use the local church roll as a defining standard of communion when probably 60% or so never or very rarely attend, do not support the church, and do not participate in its ministries. In other words, they show no signs of regeneration. This is the type of person for which closed communion argues the right to participate in the Lord's Supper. It is an artificial man made standard with no merit.

If you want to belong to a denomination that practices closed communion, may I suggest the Catholic, Church of Christ, or Mormon faiths.