Where do you stand on communion

[Tom Butler]

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.

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.

Here is why I see the Lord's Supper as separate from the Passover. It is that Paul's description in I Cor 11 mentions only that Jesus broke the bread, which is consistent with the accounts in Matthew, Mark and Luke.

The dipping of the sop is historically part of the Passover meal, and John clearly says Judas left right after receiving the sop. And whether or not the breaking of the bread is part of, or separate from, the Passover, Judas is gone by then.

Obviously, this issue is not a test of fellowship for me, since my own church's practice differs from my personal view. I do not participate in communion in any other church I visit. But I recognize each congregation's right to decide its own practice according to what it believes Scripture teaches.

 

[webdog]

Tom, why would a Jew leave during the middle of the the Passover? Couldn't Jesus comment be directed towards Satan (who eventually indwelt Judas), ala the statement He made to Peter (satan, get behind me)?

 

[webdog]

The definition for Close and open need more clarification...but it should be for anyone who is a believer. It is not up to us to decide which believers should partake based on a man-made " church membership" not even found in Scripture.

 

[annsni]

The definition for Close and open need more clarification...but it should be for anyone who is a believer. It is not up to us to decide which believers should partake based on a man-made " church membership" not even found in Scripture.

See, I agree. We see Paul speaking to the congregation in Corinth about this. 1 Corinthians 11:28 tells us "Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup." I don't see where the church is to set up requirements as to who can and cannot take communion other than the church discipline issue..

 

[Alcott]

Where do you stand on communion?

I'm usually sitting when I take it.

 

[jaigner]

Where do you stand on communion?

I'm usually sitting when I take it.

I usually stand. My church uses intinction.

It's open, and unless someone wants to sit down and examine every person before the service, that's the way to do it.

We also do it at least once a month. I wish it would be every week.

 

[abcgrad94]

See, I agree. We see Paul speaking to the congregation in Corinth about this. 1 Corinthians 11:28 tells us "Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup." I don't see where the church is to set up requirements as to who can and cannot take communion other than the church discipline issue..

Same here. My church is open communion for all believers.

 

[Jon-Marc]

The Baptist churches I've visited or been a member of have all been open to anyone who is a Christian to join in the communion--simply quoting the scripture about taking of it unworthily and letting everyone choose.

 

[Tom Butler]

Tom, why would a Jew leave during the middle of the the Passover? Couldn't Jesus comment be directed towards Satan (who eventually indwelt Judas), ala the statement He made to Peter (satan, get behind me)?

I grant that is one possible interpretation. Jesus could have been speaking to Satan, who entered Judas. But John 13:30 leaves no room for speculation. Judas received the sop and immediately left.

 

[Jerome]

Luke 22:19-21
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.

Judas had left (according to you); now how is his hand still on the table?

 

[Tom Butler]

The Baptist churches I've visited or been a member of have all been open to anyone who is a Christian to join in the communion--simply quoting the scripture about taking of it unworthily and letting everyone choose.

Would your church allow a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon to participate in communion? Now I imagine not, but I ask the question to stimulate thought.

Now, in I Cor 5, Paul demanded that the congregation exclude from fellowship the man who was involved in an illicit relationship with his father's wife. He ordered them not even to eat with him. (5:11) My understanding is that in the Corinth congregation, the Lord's Supper was observed in conjunction with a fellowship meal (Ch 11). So, here is a fellow who is excluded from the fellowship meal and from membership in the church. And you would still allow him to participate in the Lord's Supper?

Let's take this a bit further. This excluded Corinthian Baptist comes to your church. You're aware of his history. Do you welcome him with open arms? Do you invite him to your communion, even though he's been excluded from another congregation? Seems to me that it would be disobedience to Paul's admonition to "guard the ordinances" in 11:1. It would certainly be undermining the discipline exercised by a fellow congregation.

I'm all for local church autonomy, but that would carrying it too far, in my view.

By the way, the warning about taking it unworthily is very appropriate, even for our own members. They need to understand that taking the Lord's Supper is so serious that to take it lightly or in an unworthy manner could get them killed (11:30)

If that's the case, does a congregation really want to adopt a hands-off stance regarding administration of the ordinances?

 

[webdog]

Would your church allow a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon to participate in communion? Now I imagine not, but I ask the question to stimulate thought.

Now, in I Cor 5, Paul demanded that the congregation exclude from fellowship the man who was involved in an illicit relationship with his father's wife. He ordered them not even to eat with him. (5:11) My understanding is that in the Corinth congregation, the Lord's Supper was observed in conjunction with a fellowship meal (Ch 11). So, here is a fellow who is excluded from the fellowship meal and from membership in the church. And you would still allow him to participate in the Lord's Supper?

Let's take this a bit further. This excluded Corinthian Baptist comes to your church. You're aware of his history. Do you welcome him with open arms? Do you invite him to your communion, even though he's been excluded from another congregation? Seems to me that it would be disobedience to Paul's admonition to "guard the ordinances" in 11:1. It would certainly be undermining the discipline exercised by a fellow congregation.

I'm all for local church autonomy, but that would carrying it too far, in my view.

By the way, the warning about taking it unworthily is very appropriate, even for our own members. They need to understand that taking the Lord's Supper is so serious that to take it lightly or in an unworthy manner could get them killed (11:30)

If that's the case, does a congregation really want to adopt a hands-off stance regarding administration of the ordinances?

Interesting take...I'll have to chew on this one for a while.

On the surface a couple observations. One, it is dealing with a known sin that the congregation was boasting about. From the intent of Paul's letter, the entire church was "worldly" so to speak and Paul was using this particular person as an example. Two, there is no way for the leaders in the church to discern who is or is not worthy of taking communion, even amongst those believers who are "members". Three, the manner of taking it in an unworthy manner dealt with that particular instance of using it as a self centered gluttonous feast, not coming to the table without any unconfessed sin. If that is the meaning, no believer would ever be worthy to take it.

 

[annsni]

Would your church allow a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon to participate in communion? Now I imagine not, but I ask the question to stimulate thought.

It is made clear at the beginning of communion who can partake. If a JW or Mormon were at the service, and it was known that they were not of like faith and belief, we would ask that they pass the plate. If they take, it is not our responsibility to take it away - they set themselves up for God's wrath.

Now, in I Cor 5, Paul demanded that the congregation exclude from fellowship the man who was involved in an illicit relationship with his father's wife. He ordered them not even to eat with him. (5:11) My understanding is that in the Corinth congregation, the Lord's Supper was observed in conjunction with a fellowship meal (Ch 11). So, here is a fellow who is excluded from the fellowship meal and from membership in the church. And you would still allow him to participate in the Lord's Supper?

Not in our own church. If a man from another church was under church discipline, we would instruct him to not partake but if he took the cup and bread, then we are not going to stop the service to stop him. Again, he sets himself up for God's wrath. If a man was disfellowshipped from our congregation, he would not be allowed in the door so there would be no issue for communion.

Let's take this a bit further. This excluded Corinthian Baptist comes to your church. You're aware of his history. Do you welcome him with open arms? Do you invite him to your communion, even though he's been excluded from another congregation? Seems to me that it would be disobedience to Paul's admonition to "guard the ordinances" in 11:1. It would certainly be undermining the discipline exercised by a fellow congregation.

I already answered that above.

I'm all for local church autonomy, but that would carrying it too far, in my view.

By the way, the warning about taking it unworthily is very appropriate, even for our own members. They need to understand that taking the Lord's Supper is so serious that to take it lightly or in an unworthy manner could get them killed (11:30)

If that's the case, does a congregation really want to adopt a hands-off stance regarding administration of the ordinances?

Well, again, the Bible does not anywhere show us to police communion. If they are in our fellowship, then it is their choice after clear instructions whether or not to partake. As I said, if they are under church discipline, they would not be allowed back into church until the relationship was restored.

 

[Pastor Kyle]

At our church we practice "closed" communion.
By that I mean that only members of our church are able to take of the "Lord's Supper"

The reason I believe is simple.
1st if I was to allow just anyone, I don't know their standing before the Lord. Since the Lords Supper was instituted by Christ to His Church (local assembly of believers) we find that in Luke 22:14-20 when Christ began this He only had with Him the 12, no other believers were with Him. I have a tendancy to believe that there were other believers, for in Acts 1 we find 120 in the upper room.
Secondly we find that in 1 Cor. 11:23-27 Paul's account we find that Paul is writing to the Corinthian Church. Therefore we can derive that it was only the Corinthian Church partaking of the supper. Now I know the letter is one of rebuke, for they were eating and drinking unworthily, therefore many were sick and died from it. But that is exactly my point. If I allow just anyone to take, then the church would be held accountable, along with them.
Now, if I have visitors on the evening we partake, and I have, I explain that we believe in closed communion. If they take, I instruct my deacons to allow them, but they do so under the understanding that we don't condone. I am not going to make a spectacle over it, but I believe it is wrong.
Christ began His Church prior to Pentecost with the 12. He instituted the supper with the 12 as a sign that we are to offer it only to the local church.
As you can tell alot of this depends on your definition of the church, either local assembly of believers or universal church theory. I am a local church guy, therefore closed all the way.

 

[Tom Butler]

Interesting take...I'll have to chew on this one for a while.

On the surface a couple observations. One, it is dealing with a known sin that the congregation was boasting about. From the intent of Paul's letter, the entire church was "worldly" so to speak and Paul was using this particular person as an example. Two, there is no way for the leaders in the church to discern who is or is not worthy of taking communion, even amongst those believers who are "members". Three, the manner of taking it in an unworthy manner dealt with that particular instance of using it as a self centered gluttonous feast, not coming to the table without any unconfessed sin. If that is the meaning, no believer would ever be worthy to take it.

I don't think that Paul's reference to "eating and drinking unworthily (I Cor 11:29) has anything to do with our worthiness. It has to do with eating and drinking in an unworthy manner, such as you described.

web, have you ever heard of clown communion? That's communion served by deacons (I suppose) dressed as clowns. I don't know the rationale for it, but to me, that would be a perfect example of an unworthy manner. I've seen it on YouTube.

You're right that a church can't know the spiritual condition of everybody in the service. That, to me, is an argument for closed communion, because I think we can come closer to knowing about our own members.

 

[Tom Butler]

Pastor Kyle has expressed a view similar to mine. And he makes a good point about communion being a church ordinance--specifically, a local church ordinance.

Since I hold that the New Testament speaks only of the local church, then closed communion is a logical application of that view.

BTW the NT does speak of the church in the prospective sense, and in the institutional or generic sense (such as we speak of the family), but not in the universal sense.

 

[Tom Butler]

It is made clear at the beginning of communion who can partake. If a JW or Mormon were at the service, and it was known that they were not of like faith and belief, we would ask that they pass the plate. If they take, it is not our responsibility to take it away - they set themselves up for God's wrath.

Ann, I don't see making a big ruckus, either. But you are reinforcing my point that the church should exercise some judgment about it where necessary.

If a man from another church was under church discipline, we would instruct him to not partake but if he took the cup and bread, then we are not going to stop the service to stop him. Again, he sets himself up for God's wrath. If a man was disfellowshipped from our congregation, he would not be allowed in the door so there would be no issue for communion.

Fair enough. But again, you are at least making an effort to "guard the ordinances" (I Cor 11:1). You are not suspending all judgment.

Well, again, the Bible does not anywhere show us to police communion. If they are in our fellowship, then it is their choice after clear instructions whether or not to partake. As I said, if they are under church discipline, they would not be allowed back into church until the relationship was restored.

I think 11:1 does offer such instruction.

 

[convicted1]

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.

Bro OUB,

First off, no offense taken, my dear Brother! I understand your stance, because I, too, am an ORB, and I am proud of God blessing me for being there. I bolded the question you asked me, and I will do my best to give you an adequate response. I don't believe anyone should take communion at ANY church the first time they go there(I am talking about as a visitor of another church). I believe in a "feeling out" process, from both the church and the visitor. Over time, you can find out through their practices how sound, or unsound, that church is. If I felt they were of the same faith, I would feel comfortable taking communion with them. However, I wouldn't take communion until I knew that they also had feet washing involved with the communion. No feet washing, no communion for me, thanks. That's just the way I feel. I wouldn't visit a church(for the first time), and partake of the communion table the very same day. I would want to know what they stood for, feet washing or no feet washing. Now, if they visit our church(we are close communion, BTW) and they don't want to partake of feet washing, our moderator/pastor would have to address the situation. I don't see this happening, btw, but tossed this in hypothetically.

My biggest problem with a closed/close communion is this. We have a Sister that belongs at Little Martha(my home church) and her husband belongs at Leannah in the Sardis Assoc. He was there when we had our union/communion meeting in August. When we took the communion and feet washing, he set in the back(she participated in the communion) and watched as we shouted sang, preached, and had us a big ole time! He was "of same faith and order", but since Sardis and IB don't correspond, if we "worship" with one another in this manner, the fur will fly, if it's found out. This is why I don't really like close/closed communion. I hope this helps!!

i am I am's!!

Willis

 

[Zenas]

Fair enough. But again, you are at least making an effort to "guard the ordinances" (I Cor 11:1). You are not suspending all judgment.

I think 11:1 does offer such instruction.

I agree we should guard the ordinances to be sure they are conducted in an appropriate manner but I don't think that is all 1 Corinthians 11:1-2 is focusing on. Except for the KJV and the NIV (which says "hold to the teachings"), every translation I have says something like "maintain the traditions." Only the KJV says to "keep the ordinances."

 

[annsni]

Fair enough. But again, you are at least making an effort to "guard the ordinances" (I Cor 11:1). You are not suspending all judgment.

I think 11:1 does offer such instruction.

1 Corinthians 11:1 says "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ."

Where does that say to guard the ordinances?