Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Open/Close/Closed Communion


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Lately I have been doing some consideration on communion. I know many feel very strongly about communion only being taken by members of that particular local church, this position is called Closed Communion, others feel that visiting members of like minded churches in good standing are able to partake of communion, this position is called Close Communion, others feel that any one who is saved and visiting a church can take part in communion, this is called Open Communion.

I have been considering and searching the scriptures and trying to come to a conclusion on where I stand on this, and quite frankly I do not see any of the positions as being very clear in the scripture, because of this I tend to lean towards a closed communion position because of the fact that I believe it is a church ordinance. 

What are your thoughts and what are some relevant passages of scripture? 

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I spent some time looking at this, and your initial conclusion is correct: there is not a whole lot about the matter.

I have included some passages below, but the normal passage of 1 Cor 11 is difficult to prove a restriction to "church members" - it does mention "When ye come together", but we have people who attend but are not scripturally baptised - they "come together" with us, but they are not members of this church. I think 1 Cor 11 IS talking about church members, but it is not a silver bullet argument.

 

I also had to consider the matter of frequency, as there is a group over here who hold to once a year at the time of the Passover.

My conclusions were basically that the only passage that I found as to frequency was:

1Cor 11:25  After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

"As oft as ye" - in other words - when you want to remember it, do so. The once a year thing is often based on "example", because this is when the Lord did it. Not strong, but hey, if they want to do it once a year, that qualifies as "as oft as ye"...

 

There is just about as much information regarding COMMANDS as to who should partake, however, I think the strongest direction on this matter is that the Bible tells us who was present when the Lord held His supper.

Matthew 26:19-20
(19)  And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover.
(20)  Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.

Mark 14:16-17
(16)  And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.
(17)  And in the evening he cometh with the twelve.
 

Luke 22:13-14
(13)  And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.
(14)  And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.
 

All three gospels note specifically that it was "the twelve" not just  "His disciples" which could include others who were not of the the twelve, but specifically and only "the twelve".

Now, your understanding of "the church" and also of when the first church was started also affect this matter. I believe that the first church was started by Jesus Christ, and included the twelve, so for me it gets very simple from here.

When the Lord instituted His Supper, it was done only and specifically with identifiable baptised members of that church in attendance. I think the fact that the Bible very specifically uses the term "the twelve" in these passages IS significant, and it is also consistent with it being a "church ordinance".

If you believe that the church started as some say at the day of Pentecost, then you have an issue - for the Lord's Supper was done "before" there was any church (if that is your view), and it is therefore NOT A CHURCH ORDINANCE, unless you believe in a "Catholic style Universal church". (Note: I am not saying that you personally believe the church started at Pentecost - I don't remember if you stated a position previously; I also am not saying that you personally believe in a catholic style universal church - I do not think that is true. However, there are people who do hold to both these positions, or one of these positions, and they will have trouble justifying a "closed communion" position.)

 

Finally, I know of men who teach "Closed" but practice "Close" - basically, they will not cause a fuss if a visiting like-faith believer partakes, but if that person asks beforehand, they will suggest no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I love this topic: I have held to an open position of communion as the only two qualifiers that I can find in Scripture are

1. You must be saved
2. You must be right with God.

I don't get argumentative with my friends who hold to a closed because there isn't enough Scripture to be dogmatic.
A Closed argument lies with the fact that this is an ordinance for the local church. Therefore, this position would hold to only members of that church should participate. If you hold to that, I would recommend doing what a pastor friend of mine does and have it either an hour before the evening service or on a Tuesday night (Non-Church night).

To me Close is just a compromise between the two positions. Because there isn't enough Scripture to be dogmatic and no one wants to tell a visitor not to participate, they don't make a fuss.

Just a couple thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brother Kurecki, 

You asked me concerning this matter in a private message. I have not forgotten. In fact, just yesterday I intended to answer; however, I needed to include an attachment, but could not figure out how to do so in a private message.  On the other hand, how to include that attachment in the public forum is more obvious.  Therefore, I shall likely provide my opening answer sometime this afternoon in this thread (along with that attachment).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 hours ago, Pastorj said:

I love this topic: I have held to an open position of communion as the only two qualifiers that I can find in Scripture are

1. You must be saved
2. You must be right with God.

I don't get argumentative with my friends who hold to a closed because there isn't enough Scripture to be dogmatic.
A Closed argument lies with the fact that this is an ordinance for the local church. Therefore, this position would hold to only members of that church should participate. If you hold to that, I would recommend doing what a pastor friend of mine does and have it either an hour before the evening service or on a Tuesday night (Non-Church night).

To me Close is just a compromise between the two positions. Because there isn't enough Scripture to be dogmatic and no one wants to tell a visitor not to participate, they don't make a fuss.

Just a couple thoughts.

Question, did Judas partake of the Lord's supper? It seems in scripture that Judas was present when the Lord instituted the Lord's supper. What bearing does this have on all the positions relating to the Lord's supper? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
17 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

Lately I have been doing some consideration on communion. I know many feel very strongly about communion only being taken by members of that particular local church, this position is called Closed Communion, others feel that visiting members of like minded churches in good standing are able to partake of communion, this position is called Close Communion, others feel that any one who is saved and visiting a church can take part in communion, this is called Open Communion.

I have been considering and searching the scriptures and trying to come to a conclusion on where I stand on this, and quite frankly I do not see any of the positions as being very clear in the scripture, because of this I tend to lean towards a closed communion position because of the fact that I believe it is a church ordinance. 

What are your thoughts and what are some relevant passages of scripture? 

Bro. Jordan, thank you for bringing up this subject, I consider it one of great importance. I posted a devotional on this subject just over one year ago. It can be found here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brother Kurecki,

If everything has worked correctly, there will be an attached pdf with this posting.  The pdf encompasses a study that I did a few years ago at Melvin Baptist Church concerning the matter of the Lord's Supper.  The pdf is not a thorough dissertation on the subject (which, for me, would be a full-sized book), but is more like a Biblical primer on the subject.  The relevant portions of the study to the present question and discussion are as follows:

1.  Point III.B. - Depending on how an individual views the reference to us all being "one bread and one body" in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 and on how an individual views the usage of the pronoun "we" in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17.

2.  Point IV.A. - Considering the location for the administration of the Lord's Supper.

3.  Point VII.A-C. - Considering the qualifications for participation in the Lord's Supper.

4.  Point X.A-B. - Considering the principle of exclusion from the Lord's Supper.

5.  Point XI. - Depending on how an individual views the reference to breaking of bread in Acts 20:6-12.

By the way, my own position on this matter is revealed with Point XI.

The Lord's Supper.pdf

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Bro Jim said in his post 

"Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. "

I find this to be a compelling argument for closed communion. 

Pastor Scott Markle however makes these comments:

"A. 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 only teachers personal examination, personal judgment, and personal accountability in relation to the Lord’s Supper. (This passage does not grant any authority, either pastorally or ecclesiastically, to exclude another from the Lord’s Supper.)

1 Corinthians 11:27-32 – “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. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not dis- cerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.”

B. 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 teaches that believers who are walking in immorality should, by the authority of the church, be put out of church membership, be excluded from the Lord’s Supper, and be excluded from daily fellowship. (This immorality is specifically listed as fornication, covetousness, idolatry, railing, drunkenness, or extortion.)

1 Corinthians 5:1-13 – “It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wick- edness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wick- ed person.”

(Note: There is a way for a disciplined believer to be restored unto church member- ship, the Lord’s Supper, and daily fellowship – through broken-hearted repentance of their sin. 2 Corinthians 2:6-11 – “Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which

was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Where- fore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him. For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things. To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I for- gave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices.”)

XI. The Conflict in the Lord’s Supper.

The conflict in the Lord’s Supper concerns the matter of forcibly closing participation in the Lord’s Supper to those who are not members of the church in good standing, or of freely opening participation in the Lord’s Supper to anyone without discrimination. The positions in this conflict are often described as “closed communion,” “close communion,” or “open communion.” Closed communion is the position and practice of forcibly closing participation in the Lord’s Supper to any who are not actual members in good standing of the church. Close communion is the position and practice of forcibly closing participation in the Lord’s Supper to any who are not known to be baptized believers who are members in good standing of any Biblically faithful church. Open communion is the position and practice of freely opening participation in the Lord’s Supper to anyone without any form of discrimination.

Even so, this conflict generally deals with those whom we should exclude from the Lord’s Supper. However, God’s Word appears to grant us authority as a church only to exclude those believers who are walking in immorality (See 1 Corinthians 5:1-13). Yet the Lord’s Supper does apply to the matter of Biblical fellowship, and God’s Word does reveal our accountability not to invite unbelievers or compromisers into our ministry fellowship and not to pursue after ministry fellowship with them. So then, I myself believe that this con- flict concerning the Lord’s Supper should be viewed from the perspective of invitation, not exclusion. Thus I myself believer that as a church we should not openly invite, through ac- tual communication or through careless practice, such individuals to participate with us in the Lord’s Supper. On the other hand, due to Paul’s inclusion (as well as those traveling with him) in the Lord’s Supper in Acts 20:6-11, I myself believe that we should openly in- vite fellow believers who may visit with us from other Biblically faithful churches to participate with us in the Lord’s Supper. "

Both of these men make great points, which makes this situation difficult to discern in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

' FWIW, my husband basically agrees with Bro. Markle.  Except that we have always described ourselves as "close" because we've always heard that "open" means anybody who is in the room may participate - without any instructions as to biblical parameters. I attended Mormon stakes a few times as a child. They have "communion" every Sunday (or they did back then anyway) and anybody can partake. That is what we think of when we use the descriptor "open."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Bible teaches closed communion.  Only members of a particular NT church are under the authority of that local church for discipline.  A NT church is not to allow unrepentant members partake in the Lord's Supper.  If you let anyone in, you have no idea of their standing with the Lord.  We have discussed this many times in the past, look up Jerry Numbers' posts on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Lord's Supper is a memorial service, not fellowship.  Paul said if you want to eat (fellowship), do it at home.  The Lord said, this do in remembrance of me.

Like I said, the Bible teaches closed communion.  If I were to show up at Melvin Baptist and you folks were observing the Lord's Supper, I'd bow out until you were finished.  It has been a few years since I discussed this here, your arguments for it are the same ones I've come to reject as not being scriptural.  Acts 20 in no way describes Paul or anyone else partaking in the Lord's Supper.  Sounds like a regular Baptist fellowship, save for the length of time!

Happy New Year!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brother Swathdiver,

19 minutes ago, swathdiver said:

The Lord's Supper is a memorial service, not fellowship.  Paul said if you want to eat (fellowship), do it at home.  The Lord said, this do in remembrance of me.

1 Corinthians 10:16-17 -- "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?  The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?  For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread."

1.  Could you please provide a Biblical definition for the word "communion"?  (Note: It is used in the King James translation of the New Testament four times, being found in 1 Corinthians 10:16; 2 Corinthians 6:14; 2 Corinthians 13:14).

2.  Could you please provide a Biblical definition for the word "fellowship"?  (Note: It appears that in your mind the word "fellowship" is equivalent to eating food together; however, I would contend that in the New Testament the word "fellowship" means something far more spiritual, and that it never is used therein simply for eating food together.)

26 minutes ago, swathdiver said:

Like I said, the Bible teaches closed communion.  If I were to show up at Melvin Baptist and you folks were observing the Lord's Supper, I'd bow out until you were finished.  

That would certainly be your individual choice, as per the references in 1 Corinthians 11:27-32 unto an individual examining and judging HIMSELF.  On the other hand, it would be my choice whether I INVITE you to join with us or not.

On the other hand, the examples that I gave in my earlier posting were specifically intended to counter your claim that I would "have NO IDEA" of any given non-member's "standing with the Lord."  This claim is simply false, as per my examples.  I may have NO IDEA concerning total strangers who might visit, but I certainly can have SIGNIFICANT IDEA concerning others who might visit.

28 minutes ago, swathdiver said:

Acts 20 in no way describes Paul or anyone else partaking in the Lord's Supper.  Sounds like a regular Baptist fellowship, save for the length of time!

It is my belief that the reference unto "the breaking of bread" in Acts 20:6, 11 (as well as in Acts 2:42) are a reference unto the celebration of the Lord's Supper, as per a similar reference in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17.  It seems obvious that you would disagree with me, and that you might indicate that the planned event of Acts 20:6 was simply intended as a meal time together among the disciples, which the apostle Paul then turned into a lengthy, all night preaching and teaching time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Fellowship and Communion essentially mean the same thing.  They can be interchanged or defined by context.  What's your point?

Your refer to 1 Corinthians 11 and again ignore the importance and implications of 1 Corinthians 5 as it also pertains to the Lord's Supper.

Acts 20:7 - On Sunday, the disciples came together to fellowship and Paul preached to them until midnight.  After dealing with Eutychus, Paul in verse 11, broke bread and ate, then talked a long while until daylight and departed.  It is my hope that I've added nothing nor subtracted anything from this event in my recounting it here.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...