Where do you stand on communion

[stilllearning]

A simple question, that I am going to ask you to back up.
Are you Open Closed or Close?

Along with voting, please give the reason why you hold that position.


Thank you for your participation

 

[stilllearning]

This was suppose to be a poll, but it didn’t take. Sorry about that.

 

[annsni]

LOL - My hubby and kids and I just were talking about this subject. DD just made a really neat looking goblet in ceramics class in college and I think it would be GREAT to use as a prop for a graphic for communion. I HATE most of the communion graphics because so many use glass wine glasses and I just don't think that looks right. She made this rustic looking goblet and it will be perfect. Then we started joking around about putting together a graphic with Welch's and Wonderbread - two things that were NOT at the Last Supper.


So, to your question: We invite any believer to celebrate communion with us. It is their choice to partake or not but they are clearly told before communion what communion is, what it's for and who should take it and warnings about who should not.

Not sure if we'd call that open or closed communion. I kind of think of closed as being only members of that particular church and open as being anyone who wants to regardless of their stance at the cross. So we're kind of in between them.

 

[mcdirector]

So, to your question: We invite any believer to celebrate communion with us. It is their choice to partake or not but they are clearly told before communion what communion is, what it's for and who should take it and warnings about who should not.

I agree with this, but I thought this is the open definition.

(I'd love to see the goblet!)

 

[Old Union Brother]

We have a closed communion and along with communion we practice feet washing. With that said, we invite members of churches that we are in correspondace with us to come and be with us and take communion. We believe that the Lord's Supper and feet washing are ordinacnces of Jesus Christ and that true believers are the only proper subjects of these ordinances.

 

[stilllearning]

Sorry, I messed up again;
I should have included a definition, of each choice.
--------------------------------------------------
Open: (The Church allows anybody to participate) (It’s up to individual.)
Closed: (Only members of that particular Church are allowed to participate.)
Close: (Only Christians of like faith and order, are allowed to participate.)
--------------------------------------------------
Definitions are funny things; There is a new one coming down the road every day.

If you define these differently, please let me know.

 

[Old Union Brother]

Sorry, I messed up again;
I should have included a definition, of each choice.
--------------------------------------------------
Open: (The Church allows anybody to participate) (It’s up to individual.)
Closed: (Only members of that particular Church are allowed to participate.)
Close: (Only Christians of like faith and order, are allowed to participate.)
--------------------------------------------------
Definitions are funny things; There is a new one coming down the road every day.

If you define these differently, please let me know.

By these definitions we practice a close communion.

 

[annsni]

Can I ask a practical question?

How do you know if new people are of your same faith and practice and how do you prevent them from taking communion if they are not?

And what is the Biblical guidance in the church deciding who can and can't take communion other than it being for believers?

 

[Old Union Brother]

Can I ask a practical question?

How do you know if new people are of your same faith and practice and how do you prevent them from taking communion if they are not?

And what is the Biblical guidance in the church deciding who can and can't take communion other than it being for believers?

We know the associations and churches that we are in correspondence with. If a "new" person is there that no one knows we inquire of their church membership.

As for Biblical reference According to Matthew :

26:17 Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?

26:18 And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.

26:19 And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover.

26:20 Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.

You can also find the same same reference in Mark the 14th chapter and Luke 22nd chapter.

Jesus only took then passover with the 12. The good man of the house was not invited.

We also give the warning that Paul gave in I Corinthians 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

 

[Thousand Hills]

As far as I know the SBC church I attend is open (for believers), we've been there almost 4 years and never heard anything to the contrary.

Personally, I think open (for believers) is best. But agree with the passage that OUB posted from I Corinthians 11:27. That we should not take communion litely.

This past Sunday we visited a Christian Church, they take communion every Sunday. We took communion, and afterwards one of the ushers told us we weren't obligated to do so, but we told them we didn't mind that we wanted to. Just my $0.02.

I Corinthians 12:12 -27

For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked. That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

 

[Jerome]

Jesus only took then passover with the 12.

Judas too?

 

[rbell]

"Verifying" for close communion could get tricky as the numbers increase. What if you are planning on serving 400 or 500? Logistically, that could be difficult.

 

[Old Union Brother]

Judas too?

Yep.
Luke 22:18-22 And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me.
[19] And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I?
[20] And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish.
[21] The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.
[22] And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

 

[Tom Butler]

I believe Judas was not present at the Lord's Supper.

In John 13:21, Jesus foretells his betrayal. Peter asks, who is it. Jesus answers, the one to whom I give the sop. He dips it and gives it to Judas, and told him, what you do, do quickly. And Judas leaves.

The sop is not part of the Lord's Supper, but is part of the Passover feast, which are two separate things.

John does not give details of the instituting of the Lord's Supper, but the other gospels do. But only John relates Judas' leaving after receiving the sop. And, by inference, before Jesus breaks the bread of the Lord's Supper.

Since Jesus limited the Lord's Supper to the eleven, the original church, I believe this sets the pattern for limiting access to communion.

It is also a church ordinance (not a Christian ordinance), and the only examples we have for its observance is when he congregation comes together (I Cor 11).

Limiting it to local church members also relates to church discipline, and solves the problem of not knowing who should take it.

In I Cor 11, Paul instructs the Corinthian congregation to guard the ordinances. That tells me that it is the congregation who determines who shall take it, and not the individual.

My church is close (believers only), but I personally hold to closed (members only).

 

[Alive in Christ]

Open.

Explain what communion represents, and that it is for those who belong to Christ.

From that point on it should be up to those present to partake, or not, as it would be none of our business to interfere.

 

[convicted1]

Open communion believer here!!

We have a closed communion and along with communion we practice feet washing. With that said, we invite members of churches that we are in correspondace with us to come and be with us and take communion. We believe that the Lord's Supper and feet washing are ordinacnces of Jesus Christ and that true believers are the only proper subjects of these ordinances.

Dear Bro. OUB,

I am in the Indian Bottom Association, the one not in your correspondence, and I believe in open communion. I used to belong to Salem, that is in the Sardis, but I left from there and went to Little Jewell(which was in the Union Assoc. until 2002, btw), and went in the arm that formed Little Martha, May 2, 2009. Now, with that being said, the reason why I am "open communion" is because we are to "examine ourselves", and no one else. If I wash someone's feet/and also take communion with them, and they go out that night and get drunk, I did NOTHING WRONG, but they were the ones in the wrong. Jesus said as often as you do this, you do it in remembrance of Me. We do this unto Jesus, not to our Brothers. When we see our Brother's feet, we should view them as Jesus'. In the last day, Jesus will say unto His children, "As you did unto the least of these, you also did it unto Me." So when in a communion service, we need to only worry about ourself, and not the Brethren. I know that a lot of the Indian Bottom members won't agree with me on this, for almost all of them are closed commuion(IB churches only). I hope this helps!!

i am I am's!!

Willis Fletcher, Jr.

 

[Old Union Brother]

Convicted1
I know the moderator of the Little Jewell Church very well, he is a friend of mine and he originally belonged at the same church I belong too.

I realize that we are to examine ourselves and not look at the other person. I did not mean to imply that we examine people to see if they are worthy of taking communion.

My problem with open communion is that it opens the door for communion with churches that do not hold to the doctrine, orders, and practices of the local Baptist Church. I want to answer this with a question for you. Would you feel comfortable takeing communion with a church that leaves off foot washing as part of the ordinance? I'm not trying to be argumentative and I'm not trying to judge. I just want to explain my position.

 

[Old Union Brother]

I believe Judas was not present at the Lord's Supper.

In John 13:21, Jesus foretells his betrayal. Peter asks, who is it. Jesus answers, the one to whom I give the sop. He dips it and gives it to Judas, and told him, what you do, do quickly. And Judas leaves.

The sop is not part of the Lord's Supper, but is part of the Passover feast, which are two separate things.

John does not give details of the instituting of the Lord's Supper, but the other gospels do. But only John relates Judas' leaving after receiving the sop. And, by inference, before Jesus breaks the bread of the Lord's Supper.

Since Jesus limited the Lord's Supper to the eleven, the original church, I believe this sets the pattern for limiting access to communion.

It is also a church ordinance (not a Christian ordinance), and the only examples we have for its observance is when he congregation comes together (I Cor 11).

Limiting it to local church members also relates to church discipline, and solves the problem of not knowing who should take it.

In I Cor 11, Paul instructs the Corinthian congregation to guard the ordinances. That tells me that it is the congregation who determines who shall take it, and not the individual.

My church is close (believers only), but I personally hold to closed (members only).

Tom,

I will continue my study on this but I feel that the other three gospels show that Judas took the supper with Christ. Thank you for your reply you cause me to study which is a very good thing.

Jeff

 

[Zenas]

I believe Judas was not present at the Lord's Supper.

In John 13:21, Jesus foretells his betrayal. Peter asks, who is it. Jesus answers, the one to whom I give the sop. He dips it and gives it to Judas, and told him, what you do, do quickly. And Judas leaves.

The sop is not part of the Lord's Supper, but is part of the Passover feast, which are two separate things.

John does not give details of the instituting of the Lord's Supper, but the other gospels do. But only John relates Judas' leaving after receiving the sop. And, by inference, before Jesus breaks the bread of the Lord's Supper.

Since Jesus limited the Lord's Supper to the eleven, the original church, I believe this sets the pattern for limiting access to communion.

It is also a church ordinance (not a Christian ordinance), and the only examples we have for its observance is when he congregation comes together (I Cor 11).

Limiting it to local church members also relates to church discipline, and solves the problem of not knowing who should take it.

In I Cor 11, Paul instructs the Corinthian congregation to guard the ordinances. That tells me that it is the congregation who determines who shall take it, and not the individual.

My church is close (believers only), but I personally hold to closed (members only).

Tom, I agree with you about Judas but not about the Passover and the Lord's Supper being two separate events. It appears that Jesus took two events of the Passover meal (three if you count the hymn afterward) and turned them into the Lord's Supper. The main clue to this concept is 1 Corinthians 10:16 where Paul refers to the "cup of blessing." The cup of blessing is the third cup of the Passover meal, and it is preceded by a passing of the remaining matza (bread), and it is followed by the singing of a hymn known as the great Hallel. These three events, taken from the Passover meal, are what constitute the Last Supper. However, since they come near the end of the Passover meal, it is likely that Judas was already gone.

Where do I stand on communion? Both sides of this issue seem to make a good case. My church invites all baptized believers to participate but I'm not sure they would if they really considered all the ramifications of this.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

open .... they do not wish to exclude