Closed communion is not Pharisaism, it is simply taking seriously the Scriptures. It is not allowing one to eat and drink damnation on themselves. It is understanding that different views of what we actually RECEIVE in communion do, in fact, matter.
In closed communion, a Church has concern for those who expect to receive the body and blood of Christ.
Churches that practice closed communion are not claiming that those who do not believe the same as they are not Christian. They are simply saying a correct view of the Lord's Supper DOES IN FACT MATTER and that Doctrinal Unity does in fact matter as well.
li0scc0 said: Closed communion is not Pharisaism, it is simply taking seriously the Scriptures. It is not allowing one to eat and drink damnation on themselves. It is understanding that different views of what we actually RECEIVE in communion do, in fact, matter, etc., etc.
How about telling us what YOUR definition of a "Closed" communion is? I am all too aware of what some denominations/churches define it as and their practice has absolutely NO BIBLICAL WARRANT whatsoever as it is discriminatory against true believers. Perhaps YOUR definition is different than theirs? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />
BTW, those who hold to a "Close" communion vs. a "Closed" communion are no less concerned (less holy?) than those who practice a "Closed" communion about the sanctity and profundity of the Lord's Table. To suggest otherwise would be foolish indeed.
The elders used to say in our fellowship, that the Lord's table was open 'to everyone who loves the Lord' that was about the only requirement, visitor's included, who are we to deny a true Christian his right to the Lord's supper!
Pro 19:27 GNB My child, when you stop learning, you will soon neglect what you already know.
Personally speaking, I feel that the only real requirement is that the pastor who is about to give communion read Scripture about communion, i.e. the seriousness of the matter. Then unless the pastor/elders know of people who shouldn't participate they are free to serve communion to all those who want to participate. In the case where the pastor or elders know of someone who should not participate, they should privately (if possible) before entering into communion, ask the person to not participate.
Open communion provides the perfect breeding ground for incubating the infection: The visitor is communed without examination. He then shares his error (e.g., "God reveals Himself in three different ways.") with the weaker members of the church who, as you said, would have trouble passing a simple test on the trinity.
Speratus you need to go and take some medicine—theological meds…. you are theologically sick <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/sick.gif" alt="" /> WHERE have we talked about OPEN communion?
Look at Acts 20:7;
Quote
And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and prolonged his speech until midnight.
They broke bread (compare, Acts 2:42, 46)—love feast, communion. What Church was Paul the member at? Was he a member of the one at Troas, where he was only visiting? (Paul had visited Troas on his 2nd missionary journey. There he had seen a vision of a Macedonian man who begged him to “come over … and help us” (Acts 16:9–10). At that time, Paul did not preach the gospel in Troas, but during his third missionary journey, he found a church there (2 Cor 2:12) NTC). Now, Paul was having communion at a Church different then his own! Who examined him? There appears to be only a close (not closed, or open as you have purposely accused some here of ... ) communion here, where one examines himself!
Since, according to you Paul was only allowed to take communion in his home Church (closed communion), are you thus assering that Paul never partook of communion when he visited: JERUSALEM, CAESAREA, the REGIONS OF SYRIA, ROME, or ANTIOCH, where it never states he was examined for communion? Are you saying Paul rarely, if ever, partook of communion? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Eeeeeek.gif" alt="" />
Pilgrim said: Lastly, you have never addressed my questions posed to you concerning the situation where a visitor to your church, who is a professing believer; a true believer in the Lord Christ, attempts to partake of the Lord's Supper. Would and you stop this person from doing so? And how would you stop him? Would you physically try to stop this person and/or physically remove him from the building? How far are you willing to go in such matters?
If an uninvited guest ignores the commands of the elders and wishes to commune himself by eating and drinking the consecrated elements by his own hand, I don't think he should be physically restrained.
We should not judge the spiritual condition of the uninvited guest. He may well be a true believer and he should be assumed to be so having given a credible profession of faith. However, that is not the criteria established by scripture for the stewards of the mystery (1 Cor. 11:18-20). As 2 Thes. 3:14-15 states, "if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." The examination and the withholding of communion are signs of love and concern for our dear Christian brother.
speratus said: However, that is not the criteria established by scripture for the stewards of the mystery (1 Cor. 11:18-20). As 2 Thes. 3:14-15 states, "if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." The examination and the withholding of communion are signs of love and concern for our dear Christian brother.
There is NO SUCH CRITERIA, which you are espousing, to be found in either of the texts referenced nor in the entire Bible. You are opposed to God and grace when you attempt to restrict Christ's sheep from coming to the Table..... by demanding that they qualify themselves by passing some doctrinal examination fabricated by men!! Is this so difficult to understand?
You really need to learn how to exegete and then rightly apply the Scriptures so that you are not constantly taking texts out of CONTEXT and thus promoting nothing more than pretext.
2 Thessalonians 3:11-15 (ASV) "For we hear of some that walk among you disorderly, that work not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. But ye, brethren, be not weary in well-doing. And if any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle, note that man, that ye have no company with him, to the end that he may be ashamed. And [yet] count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother."
First..... it is undeniably clear that this passage has absolutely nothing to do with demanding a believer pass a doctrinal examination in order to qualify for admission to the Lord's Table. To use this passage in that manner is gross "eisogesis".
Second, the CONTEXT here is in regard to certain individuals who were basically lazy and going about spreading rumours, sticking their noses into other people's business instead of doing their own work and even engaging in disorderly conduct. Thus it is to them that Paul says that they should straighten up else be subject to a break in close fellowship (aka: ostracized) by the members of the assembly in order that they may be ashamed of their unacceptable behaviour, repent and return with a new attitude, etc.
Quote
2 Timothy 2:15 (ASV) "Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth."
Open communion provides the perfect breeding ground for incubating the infection: The visitor is communed without examination. He then shares his error (e.g., "God reveals Himself in three different ways.") with the weaker members of the church who, as you said, would have trouble passing a simple test on the trinity.
Speratus you need to go and take some medicine—theological meds…. you are theologically sick <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/sick.gif" alt="" /> WHERE have we talked about OPEN communion?
Earlier in this thread, J Edwards writes, "I have visited hundreds of Churches and NEVER been examined once before the sacraments, not once." Sounds like open communion to me. Or did the elders of each of these hundreds of Churches personally know of your confession of Jesus Christ?
Quote
J_Edwards said:Look at Acts 20:7;
Quote
And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and prolonged his speech until midnight.
They broke bread (compare, Acts 2:42, 46)—love feast, communion. What Church was Paul the member at? Was he a member of the one at Troas, where he was only visiting? (Paul had visited Troas on his 2nd missionary journey. There he had seen a vision of a Macedonian man who begged him to “come over … and help us” (Acts 16:9–10). At that time, Paul did not preach the gospel in Troas, but during his third missionary journey, he found a church there (2 Cor 2:12) NTC). Now, Paul was having communion at a Church different then his own! Who examined him? There appears to be only a close (not closed, or open as you have purposely accused some here of ... ) communion here, where one examines himself!
Since, according to you Paul was only allowed to take communion in his home Church (closed communion), are you thus assering that Paul never partook of communion when he visited: JERUSALEM, CAESAREA, the REGIONS OF SYRIA, ROME, or ANTIOCH, where it never states he was examined for communion? Are you saying Paul rarely, if ever, partook of communion? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Eeeeeek.gif" alt="" />
Here's my definintions. Open Communion: No examination by the elders. Closed Communion: Prior examination as determined by the elders. Close Communion: useless term. All except the orthodox and the romanists accept the need for personal examination.
Paul was never a Pope. He never placed himself above the principles that he had been given to teach. I assume Paul was examined by the elders in the churches he started and the churches he visited. Please show me where Paul communed at churches that permitted those who caused divisions and offenses to commune.
Pilgrim said: <blockquote> 2 Thessalonians 3:11-15 (ASV) "For we hear of some that walk among you disorderly, that work not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. But ye, brethren, be not weary in well-doing. And if any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle, note that man, that ye have no company with him, to the end that he may be ashamed. And [yet] count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother."<br> </blockquote> First..... it is undeniably clear that this passage has absolutely nothing to do with demanding a believer pass a doctrinal examination in order to qualify for admission to the Lord's Table. To use this passage in that manner is gross "eisogesis".
Second, the CONTEXT here is in regard to certain individuals who were basically lazy and going about spreading rumours, sticking their noses into other people's business instead of doing their own work and even engaging in disorderly conduct. Thus it is to them that Paul says that they should straighten up else be subject to a break in close fellowship (aka: ostracized) by the members of the assembly in order that they may be ashamed of their unacceptable behaviour, repent and return with a new attitude, etc.
How can you say the passage has nothing to do the elder's examination? Would not a break in close fellowship necessarily entail a temporary ban from receiving the sacrament? How would this lesser ban be lifted until except by repentance before the elder? Are you proposing that the ban be lifted based on outword works observed by the elder? Isn't that a return to the popish doctrine of penance?
Earlier in this thread, J Edwards writes, "I have visited hundreds of Churches and NEVER been examined once before the sacraments, not once." Sounds like open communion to me. Or did the elders of each of these hundreds of Churches personally know of your confession of Jesus Christ?
As most individuals here know Speratus (and you have been previously advised) I was an evangelist for many years and thus yes the pastors and many of the congregations knew me .... thus this was not open communion, but close Communion.
Quote
Speratus Assumes,
I assume Paul was examined by the elders in the churches he started and the churches he visited. Please show me where Paul communed at churches that permitted those who caused divisions and offenses to commune.
YOU ASSUME, this is the problem... Speratus, are you saying this was the case with EVERY individual in EVERY church without exception that Paul ever visited? Are you implying that EVERY Church had such division and problems that Paul implies the Lord's Table should just have been thrown out? If this was the case just where did Paul ever have Communion? (PS: Paul did not physically stop anyone from communing in 1 Cor 11, but rather instructed them that the communion of "some" was incorrect and instructed them otherwise ....).
Now I provided BIBLICAL proof in my last post. Will you please address the Scripture and stop "assuming"? As usual we desire Scripture, not Speratmess.
As Paul says, "For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged."
speratus asks: How can you say the passage has nothing to do the elder's examination? Would not a break in close fellowship necessarily entail a temporary ban from receiving the sacrament? How would this lesser ban be lifted until except by repentance before the elder?
I will simply echo the admonishment which J_Edwards gave you in his most recent response to you above, re: assuming things which simply are not existent nor found in the Scriptures. Perhaps you may not have noted, most all the quoted passages of Scripture I offer are from the ASV. I do not nor cannot acknowledge nor accept your erroneous eisogesis, misapplications nor quoting from your personal "DSV" (aka: "Devised Standard Version").
How can I say that the passage has nothing to do with the elder's examination? Quite easily, actually, since as I pointed out to you before, the CONTEXT of the Corinthian passage is not addressing any idea of an "examination" and specifically in regard to the qualifications one must allegedly meet to partake of the Lord's Table. I take very seriously the apostle John's admonishment and warning to not add to Scripture.
Secondly, as I also pointed out, the passage does not speak of "excommunication" but rather "ostracism" (aka: shunning) those who were disorderly, busybodies, lazy, etc. Notice also that this idea of ostracism is re-enforced in that Paul says to treat such as "brothers". If excommunication was the intent of the action to be taken, then the excommunicated person could not be looked upon and/or treated as a "brother". For in fact, to excommunicate is to pronounce an individual as an unbeliever due to an attitude of unrepentance in regard to serious sin and/or heretical doctrine.
Lastly, qualification to partake of the Lord's Table is NOT based upon one holding to a right understanding of a full-orbed systematic theology, but rather that the person have a genuine and valid profession of faith in the Lord Christ, a life consistent with that profession and not be under discipline by the church. The Lord's Table is UNIVERSAL and does not belong to any single congregation nor denomination. One is to be examined by the church on these 3 elements and these alone. And the individual is responsible for self-examination. The salient issue is the spiritual state of one's soul and not one's ability to answer a list of arbitrary doctrinal questions.
I say to you once again:
Quote
2 Timothy 2:15 (ASV) "Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth."
Close or closed Communion is not just some strange "WELS synodical rule." Closed Communion is a biblically faithful practice that testifies to the fact that, where there is not a common confession of faith in all that Scripture has to say, we cannot stand or kneel together at the Lord's table as if differences in teaching are of no importance. Because the Scripture teaches us of our salvation and guides us in living to our Savior's glory, we have learned to "hate every wrong path" (Psalm 119:104). When we commune together, we are making a statement of unity in the faith. That confession becomes an empty shell of itself if we do not faithfully practice close or closed communion.
Of course, we must be careful, as much as we can, that people understand what we are saying. At times, visitors and guests seem to get the impression that we are making a judgment on their heart (whether they are a Christian or not). Instead, we are doing what Scripture asks us to do, and that is to be discerning judges of that which people confess to believe as we compare that to Scripture.
What often adds to the potential for confusion and taking offense by worship guests is that most of the visible church neither practices closed Communion nor cares much anymore about being careful with biblical doctrine. We are struggling against the religious spirit of the times in which we live.
Finally, even where we have been patient and careful and loving in our explanation, we cannot help that at times people will become upset and angry at our practice... That should not surprise us. Our proud natural human hearts--which even Christians will struggle with until the day we go home to heaven--often take offense at biblical truth.
li0scc0 said: Of course, we must be careful, as much as we can, that people understand what we are saying. <span style="background-color:yellow">At times, visitors and guests seem to get the impression that we are making a judgment on their heart (whether they are a Christian or not). Instead, we are doing what Scripture asks us to do, and that is to be discerning judges of that which people confess to believe as we compare that to Scripture.</span>
Steve,
First of all, you have offered not one shred of BIBLICAL evidence for the practice of forcing those who profess faith in Christ and who desire to partake of the Lord's Table to submit to some arbitrary doctrinal examination in order for them to be "qualified" participants. And I must emphasize that such doctrinal examinations are clearly arbitrary and dependent upon the group who devises it. This unbiblical, unwarranted and Pharisaical position would allow any group to forbid a true believer from partaking of that Supper which the LORD JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF bids them come, if they differed on ANY point of doctrine from that which the "group" holds to be true. Do you seriously believe that someone who holds to Postmillennialism should be barred from the Table if the "group" giving their private examination holds to Amillennialism? Or should a Baptist Church forbid someone from the Lord's Table because they hold to "effusion" rather than "immersion"? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />
Secondly, all that I have written in response to speratus applies here as well. So, I say read my responses. hehe
Lastly, and now to the highlighted portion of your quote from the WELS document. Their attempt to circumvent that which is incontrovertibly true, i.e., the Lord's Supper is open to ALL of Christ's precious sheep and thus to bar one from that Supper is to undeniably pass judgment upon a person's spiritual condition. Since only BELIEVERS are to partake of the Lord's Table then anyone forbidden access to the Table must logically be looked upon as an UNbeliever. As I pointed out before, the Lord's Table is primarily a place/event where a true believer communes with CHRIST and during which the Holy Spirit ministers to that person's soul, impressing upon him/her Christ's love, the sufficiency of His atonement for them and an assurance that they shall be forever hold fast by the promise, power and preservation of Almighty God, the Father of their souls. The issue is a very sober and crucial one and to forbid one of Christ's lambs from communing with Him unjustly is a grave matter indeed. (cf. Lk 18:15, 16; Matt 18:10)
Pilgrim said: Secondly, as I also pointed out, the passage does not speak of "excommunication" but rather "ostracism" (aka: shunning) those who were disorderly, busybodies, lazy, etc. Notice also that this idea of ostracism is re-enforced in that Paul says to treat such as "brothers". If excommunication was the intent of the action to be taken, then the excommunicated person could not be looked upon and/or treated as a "brother". For in fact, to excommunicate is to pronounce an individual as an unbeliever due to an attitude of unrepentance in regard to serious sin and/or heretical doctrine.
I was referring to the lesser ban (from communion) which is the intent of passage. Although "shunned" from the sacrament, the sinner is still considered a Christian brother. The greater ban from communion is excommunication. In excommunication, the sinner is considered a heathen and a publican (Matt. 18:15-17). Both shunning and excommunication are examples of the binding key. The elders do not exercise the binding key in an arbitrary fashion. The member or visitor is invited before the elders to give an account of himself (examination) before these bans are pronounced.
Quote
Pilgrim said: Lastly, qualification to partake of the Lord's Table is NOT based upon one holding to a right understanding of a full-orbed systematic theology, but rather that the person have a genuine and valid profession of faith in the Lord Christ, a life consistent with that profession and not be under discipline by the church.
Would a gross and manifest sinner under church discipline be invited to commune if he confesses his past sins to the elders or is penance required first?
speratus said: I was referring to the lesser ban (from communion) which is the intent of passage. Although "shunned" from the sacrament, the sinner is still considered a Christian brother.
Once again.... you are guilty of eisogesis and rendering the Scriptures to your own destruction. The passage (2 Thessalonians 3:11-15) says NOTHING about the Lord's Table. "Communion of the Saints" is not synonymous with the term "communion" as it is sometimes used to refer to the Lord's Table. And further, there is NOTHING even hinted at in that passage nor anywhere in the entire Bible that instructs the Elders of an assembly to conduct a doctrinal examination of all those who desire to partake of the Lord's Table. As is so typical of you, no Scripture has been offered in defense of your erroneous ideas. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/igiveup.gif" alt="" />
Quote
speratus queries: Would a gross and manifest sinner under church discipline be invited to commune if he confesses his past sins to the elders or is penance required first?
Your question makes no sense. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> 1) A church member under discipline is automatically barred from the Lord's Table. Thus there is no "invitation" for him to partake of it. 2) What is required of one under discipline is repentance. If the Elders perceive genuine repentance then the individual is entitled to full communion in the assembly which would include partaking of the sacraments.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
