The Lord's Table: How Accessible?

[HAMel]

Will your church tell non-members that they can't be in a teaching position? Can non-members utilize your facilities in the same fashion that members can? Do you expect non-members to tithe at your church?

Are any of these situations "not fair"?

If the church has sound by-laws the necessaries should be spelled out when it comes to teaching.

Church facilities should not be open to the pubic. In our local community there are several "Community Centers" available for parties, receptions, etc.

Do I expect anyone to tithe? Only if the Lord leads them to do so.

 

[matt wade]

If the church has sound by-laws the necessaries should be spelled out when it comes to teaching.

So, it's acceptable to you then that my church has closed communion spelled out in its by-laws?

 

[matt wade]

Yes, he did leave - AFTER having received the piece of bread.

The sopping of the bread and the Lord's Supper were two different events that happened in that room (as shown in Matthew 26). John 13:30 clearly tells us that Judas "went immediately out" after the sop.

 

[Tom Butler]

Originally Posted by matt wade
The apostles, at the time, we members of the only church around. The one founded and led by Jesus Christ.

That's because the Church is universal in that regard. All of the redeemed are united under the Blessed Savior. Therefore, communion should be open to all believers. Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree.

Universal in what regard? It was a local congregation. It had a Head (Jesus), it had ordinances (baptism and Lord's Supper); it had marching orders early on and a Commission after the resurrection; It sent out mission teams; it had power over demons; and it had meetings; it had church discipline (Matt 18). All of this before Pentecost.

Someone will say it didn't have the Holy Spirit before Pentecost. Yes it did, see John 20:22 "....receive ye the Holy Spirit."

So the Lord's Supper was a local church ordinance from the very beginning. That's because there was an assembled body of disciples they moment he completed their selection and calling. And they were all immersed by one authorized by God to do so.

 

[John Toppass]

The sopping of the bread and the Lord's Supper were two different events that happened in that room (as shown in Matthew 26). John 13:30 clearly tells us that Judas "went immediately out" after the sop.

I do not see that sopping and the Lords Supper are two different events, it may have. But, Jesus, Himself, says in Luke 22: 21 that his betrayer's hand was at the table during the last supper in Luke 22: 17-21.

 

[matt wade]

I do not see that sopping and the Lords Supper are two different events, it may have. But, Jesus, Himself, says in Luke 22: 21 that his betrayer's hand was at the table during the last supper in Luke 22: 17-21.

Once again we need to understand Scripture as a whole. In the other Gospels, we have a clear understanding that Judas left immediately after the sop (immediately after the meal, which is different than the Lord's Supper). If the other Gospels show us this, then why does Luke seem to tell us differently? The most obvious answer is that Luke was not chronologically correct. The Gospel of Luke is not chronological in other places, so it is a safe assumption that this case may not be chronological either.

 

[John Toppass]

Once again we need to understand Scripture as a whole. In the other Gospels, we have a clear understanding that Judas left immediately after the sop (immediately after the meal, which is different than the Lord's Supper). If the other Gospels show us this, then why does Luke seem to tell us differently? The most obvious answer is that Luke was not chronologically correct. The Gospel of Luke is not chronological in other places, so it is a safe assumption that this case may not be chronological either.

I agree with the fact that Judas left after the sop (or the meal) as stated in John 13.
In Matt. 26, and Mark 14, the nature of events say that "while" they were eating Jesus executed the first Lord's supper and in Luke 22, after the Lord's Supper Jesus says that His betrayer's hand is at the table with him. (I do not remember any passages that say that Judas was not connected to his hand).

So, we have the gospels of Matthew and Mark stating that the Lord's supper was conducted during the meal or the sop (as matt wade correctly stated) and we have Luke stating that the betrayer was still at the table after the Lord's supper which was during the meal,(Matt 26 and Mark 14) and John stating that the betrayer (Judas) left after the sop (meal).

John does not say anything about the Lord's supper. Some say that the sharing of the sop was an indication that the meal was over and this was the last of it.

In conclusion, by reading the scripture as a whole, as suggest by matt, we find that indeed according to scripture Judas was at the first Last Supper and none of the Gospels contradict each other on this. :thumbs:

 

[HAMel]

So, it's acceptable to you then that my church has closed communion spelled out in its by-laws?

What your church does is of no consequence to me what-so-ever.

What I do find a bit striking is the attitude of (some/a few) on here where one would otherwise expect a more agreeable exchange of ideals but rather, that appears to be missing.

On occasion, absent the foul language, this is just another forum board. No one seems to get along.

 

[revmwc]

Yes, thank you for making my point. Jesus closed the first communion to those that were not worthy.

Jesus closed nothing. Now I see your saying if they aren't members of youer church they aren't saved and aren't worthy to partake.

That makes it even worse. The twelve then down to 11 were his closest folowers but not His only folllowers so are you saying that only those who are members of YOUR church are the only ones in His inner circle?

 

[Tom Butler]

A couple of posters have mentioned the subject of being worthy to take the Lord's Supper. They are apparently confusing Paul's reference in I Corinthians 11:27 to taking the Lord's Supper unworthily.

Paul is talking about taking the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner. In this passage, he is whipping up on the members at FBC Corinth. They fail to share their food at the church meal. They get drunk at the meal. They fail to examine themselves. They fail to discern the Lord's body.

So Paul is speaking not of one's worthiness or qualifications to take communion; he is speaking of their behavior. It is so serious, Paul says God has killed some of them, and put others in the sickbed.

 

[revmwc]

A couple of posters have mentioned the subject of being worthy to take the Lord's Supper. They are apparently confusing Paul's reference in I Corinthians 11:27 to taking the Lord's Supper unworthily.

Paul is talking about taking the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner. In this passage, he is whipping up on the members at FBC Corinth. They fail to share their food at the church meal. They get drunk at the meal. They fail to examine themselves. They fail to discern the Lord's body.

So Paul is speaking not of one's worthiness or qualifications to take communion; he is speaking of their behavior. It is so serious, Paul says God has killed some of them, and put others in the sickbed.

1 Corinthians 11:
26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
30For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

They had sin in their life notice verse 31 if we judge ourselves then we won't be judged. When we dont verse 32 says God chastens us. So if as you say "Paul is talking about taking the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner." then we are only chastened when we paretake of the Lord's supper in an unworthy manner, is that what you are saying. Paul is making it real clear that we need to judge whether we have anything that makes us unworthy, that would be sin also. Sin brings chastening.

 

[Tom Butler]

My point was to correct the use of the word "unworthily," which had been misused.

We can have a discussion on whether any of us are worthy to take the Supper, but that wasn't my point.

 

[Tom Butler]

I'm going to submit a few quotes from writings of some knowledgeable Bible scholars.
You'll be relieved to know that they all won't come in one document dump.

First is a segment from a writing by R. Charles Blair. He is a former Bible College professor and administrator, now pastor.

Some are critical because they consider this a Christian ordinance. They feel that we have told them we do not consider them Christians because we do not invite them to the Lord’s Table when they visit with us.
To such, we suggest a careful and prayerful reading of the Scriptures. 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!

It seems to me that by definition, we are not unified with Christians of other denominations, for we disagree about too much that cannot be resolved or compromised.

 

[Tom Butler]

They had sin in their life notice verse (I Cor 11)31 if we judge ourselves then we won't be judged. When we dont verse 32 says God chastens us. So if as you say "Paul is talking about taking the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner." then we are only chastened when we partake of the Lord's supper in an unworthy manner, is that what you are saying. Paul is making it real clear that we need to judge whether we have anything that makes us unworthy, that would be sin also. Sin brings chastening.

No argument here. But Paul does not mean that the congregation may not judge.

In fact, a few chapters earlier, Paul specifically admonished the FBC Corinth to pass judgment on a member.

Chapter 5:11:

But now I have written to you not to keep company if any man is called a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one not to eat.

Paul is speaking specifically of a man who is having an affair with his father's wife.

He told the congregation to kick him out, noting that he, Paul, had already judged the matter (v.3)

Then, in v.12, right after he had told them not to even let him eat the fellowship meal (or the Lord's Supper which followed) with them, he said,

don't you judge those who are within?

The passage does not say if the member had judged himself, but apparently he had not, and up to that point the members had not judged him either.

However, in Paul's second letter, he may have been talking about this situation in 2:5-8. Whoever it was, this person had evidently repented and grieved over his sin. Paul tells the congregation to forgive him and comfort him, that he has been punished enough.

So Paul has clearly established the authority of the local church to discipline its members, even to exclude them from fellowship, which would include communion.

 

[Tom Butler]

Here's another quote on our subject:

Only those have the right to come to the Lord’s table in the Lord’s church who meet all the conditions of church fellowship. It would not only be unscriptural, but inconsistent and illogical to invite people to the Lord’s table in His church who have not meet all the conditions of church fellowship and whom we could receive into church fellowship as they stand. But say one, “We could not receive them into fellowship because they have not been baptized.” Then what right – scriptural or moral – have we to symbolize a fellowship (saying we are “one body in Christ” which does not exist? Is not this symbolizing a falsehood in the name of “charity?” W.D. Nowlin – page 312. “Fundamentals of the Faith"