Jump to content
Online Baptist
  • Welcome Guest

    Tired of all the fighting that goes on in facebook groups? Are you ready for a community where you can talk about things of God and the Bible without getting branded a heretic? Well, we are glad you found us. Why don't you give us a try and see how friendly and different we are. - BroMatt

Jordan Kurecki

Open/Close/Closed Communion

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

' 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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 12:57 PM, Jordan Kurecki said:

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? 

Yes, Judas was there and Jesus gave him bread.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
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.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
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.
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

Let's examine the passage:
What is the Lord's Supper
1. It is a memorial service to show the Lord's death (vs. 26)
2. It is an opportunity for Christians to examine themselves (vs. 28)

How often should the Lord's Supper be done
1. As often as you want (vs. 26) - There is no frequency given. The early church did it weekly. I know churches that do it annually. I used to do it when the Lord laid it on my heart.

Who can participate
1. Those in attendance - There is no reference to excluding people in this passage2. Can a Christian bring damnation to yourself - The answer is no. Damnation is never spoken of for a Christian. Paul is obviously stating that those that are unsaved should not participate in the Lord's Supper

Consequences for taking it unworthily
1. You risk bringing damnation to yourself. Notice, in verse 29 he speaks singularly to the person who is partaking.
2. Many believe that the whole body is at risk, but in verse 29, Paul is speaking to the specific person who is partaking, not the whole church.

How about verse 34 - That verse is truly speaking of the Body. However, he is tying that verse back to verse 22. Paul starts of talking about eating and drinking and doing in your own home. He closes with reminding people that the Church is sacred.

Nowhere in this passage does Paul say that the Church is responsible to ensure that all participating are right with God. It is an individual decision. I would never have had the Lord's Supper if it were up to me to determine whether everyone was right with God. It was up to me to ensure I was right with God.

Hope that helps, but probably not :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, swathdiver said:

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

Brother Swathdiver,

My point was to counter your earlier statement as follows:

On ‎12‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 8:24 AM, 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.

With this statement you declare that the Lord's Supper is not about "fellowship."

However, in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 God's own Word indicates that the cup and bread of the Lord's Supper IS about "communion" (employing that VERY word); and you have now acknowledged that "fellowship" and "communion" essentially mean "the SAME thing."  Even so, while in 1 Corinthians 11:22-26 God's own Word teaches us that the Lord's Supper is "a memorial service," in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 God's own Word teaches us that the Lord's Supper is ALSO a FELLOWSHIP service (in contradiction to your own statement above).

Now, within the flow of thought of this thread discussion, your denial against the Lord's Supper being a fellowship service was delivered as an attempt to counter my statement from an earlier posting, as follows:

On ‎12‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 11:16 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

It appears that you have a very strong belief that the issue for the Lord's Supper is about the AUTHORITY to discipline and exclude.  I myself disagree; for I believe very strongly that the New Testament teaches that the issue for the Lord's Supper is about the FELLOWSHIP of Christian communion.  (Note: It is interesting to me that the celebration of the Lord's Supper has become a tool of DISCIPLINE, rather than a tool of COMMUNION; whereas, I find in the New Testament, not that it speaks concerning the discipline of the Lord's Supper, but that it speaks concerning the communion of the Lord's Supper.)

Based upon the teaching of 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, I will contend that my declaration above stands.

On the other hand, you appear to believe that the teaching of 1 Corinthians 5:7-11 reveals that the Lord's Supper is about "the authority to discipline and exclude;" and you also appear to accuse me of NOT factoring that passage into my doctrinal positioning.  Indeed, you appear to make that accusation above, as follows:

3 hours ago, swathdiver said:

You 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.

However, in my comments from a previous posting, I did NOT "ignore the importance and implications of 1 Corinthians 5 as it also pertains to the Lord's Supper."  In fact, I presented the following:

On ‎12‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 11:16 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

However, since even in relation to the membership of Melvin Baptist Church, I cannot find a passage which indicates that the church or its leadership is to examine and judge even its own members' spiritual relationship with the Lord (except in the case of actual church discipline), whether they are worthy to partake of the Lord's supper, but that each individual believer is to examine and judge himself (which pronoun is the VERY one used in Scripture), I am not compelled to believe that I am required to do this for those believers who are not members of the church.  (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

1 Corinthians 5 reveals the principles and process of "church discipline" for those believers who are known to be living in certain lifestyles of immorality (specified in 1 Corinthians 5:11 as "a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner").  As such, 1 Corinthians 5:7-11 indicates that those members who have ACTUALLY been disciplined from the church by the church's authority should be excluded by that church's authority from partaking in the (company, communion, fellowship of the) Lord's Supper with them.  With precision, this passage applies to believers who are ACTUALLY under church discipline for a known lifestyle of immorality.  In fact, the pdf of my full study concerning the Lord's Supper includes this Biblical truth.  Furthermore, that portion of my pdf study that Brother Jordan Kurecki quoted within this very thread discussion included this Biblical truth, as follows:

On ‎12‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 10:29 PM, Jordan Kurecki said:

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. "

(emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Even so, given this very evidence within this very thread discussion, I would contend that your accusation against me does NOT stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2018 at 7:33 AM, Pastorj said:

Yes, Judas was there and Jesus gave him bread.

 

17 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

I am still wondering if Judas actually partook of the Lord's supper or not. It's an interesting though.

Jordan,

Pastorj was correct when he stated that Judas Iscariot partook of the Lord's supper. The Roman Catholic belief that Judas did not partake of the Lord's Supper is in error.

Luke 22:19-22 "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. And truly the son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed."   The Lord Jesus makes it quite clear that Judas "is with me on the table."

God bless.

Alan

 

 

Edited by Alan
capitalization

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

growing up my church practiced closed communion, so I obviously thought that was the correct way to observe it. I didn't realize there was a controversy about communion until I went to college.  The church I started going to observed open communion. I admit the first time I was faced with this I slipped out during the prayer and sat downstairs (I rode the church van) because i was very uncomfortable with the concept having been raised very differently.  Eventually I realized that the controversy usually revolves around HOW it is observed.  Frequently churches practicing closed communion have it during service and tell people who are not members of their church that they can't participate.  That is not how my church, or other churches in my home area, practice closed communion.  It is announced at church when communion is going to take place, and it happens about 45 minutes before the evening service.  Only members come, the door is locked and communion is observed, dismissed with a hymn, then the door opened and we prepare for evening service.  I personally like that format, it is more intimate, much like how I imagine the first Lord's Supper was.  If a church practices open communion then I think it is wrong to forbid those to participate who want to, because then we are judging their relationship with God.  While I was visiting a church with the ministry team I participated in at college they had communion at the end service for only the members of the church.  While I understood their position I did feel it was kind of rude to have part of the service that specifically excluded certain people, especially since we were from a Christian college, we all had testimonies of the gospel and were invited to be there. This is just my experience and thoughts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did  not know you were in WV. I just travelled through it today. I have never been through here before and think it is beautiful.....? I am staying overnight just over the border in Altoona  MD. On  my way back east to visit family in New England.

I thought that the scenery as well as the quaint nature of the small towns I saw was very unique and captivating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

I did  not know you were in WV. I just travelled through it today. I have never been through here before and think it is beautiful.....? I am staying overnight just over the border in Altoona  MD. On  my way back east to visit family in New England.

I thought that the scenery as well as the quaint nature of the small towns I saw was very unique and captivating.

My Dad was from WVA. We lived there for a few years when I was a teenager. It is beautiful! (and WVA voted in favor  today of an amendment saying there is no right to abortion for any reason...!!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

I did  not know you were in WV. I just travelled through it today. I have never been through here before and think it is beautiful.....? I am staying overnight just over the border in Altoona  MD. On  my way back east to visit family in New England.

I thought that the scenery as well as the quaint nature of the small towns I saw was very unique and captivating.

 

yep, I was born here and have lived most of my life here. I live in my maternal grandparents' house.  sorry to have missed you, hubby even had yesterday off!

9 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

My Dad was from WVA. We lived there for a few years when I was a teenager. It is beautiful! (and WVA voted in favor  today of an amendment saying there is no right to abortion for any reason...!!).

 

very proud of that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry TH,  I just never noticed before. I read a post you made and saw where you lived under your avatar. Too bad, would have been nice to visit.

I'm in Penn now and headed to Mass. To visit family, then south vvisiting family all the wy to Florida.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 17 Guests (See full list)



×