The Case for Open Communion
By Trevin Wax on Oct 11, 2007 in Christianity, Theology, Theology of Lord's Supper | 
Print This Post | Share (Twitter, Email, Facebook)
About a month ago, there was much discussion among Baptists about whether or not the Together for the Gospel guys could meet at the Lord’s Table. Could Ligon Duncan share Communion with Al Mohler, for example? How together for the Gospel are we if we cannot sit at the Lord’s table for fellowship? The recent debate has only reaffirmed my previous conviction that the doctrine of Open Communion is the most biblical.
For those unfamiliar with the discussion, here is a brief definition of terms.
1. Open Communion – All those who are believers in Christ are welcome to join us in taking the Lord’s Supper.
2. Close Communion – All those who are believers in Christ and are baptized by immersion are welcome to join us in taking the Lord’s Supper.
3. Closed Communion – Only those who are members of our local congregation and not under church discipline are welcome to join us in taking the Lord’s Supper.
NOTE: Please do not leave a comment on this post that argues for a particular position until you have read the following in its entirety.
Open communion is the principle that most closely follows biblical teaching for three reasons. First, a correct understanding of the significance of table fellowship in Jewish culture demands that the table be open to all believers in Christ. Secondly, although the Lord’s Supper is practiced in the context of local churches, it is primarily a universal church ordinance. Thirdly, the Lord’s Supper serves as a foretaste of the eschatological banquet with God of which all true Christians will partake.
Jewish Understanding of Table Fellowship
The Synoptic authors go to great lengths to show that the Last Supper fits within the context of the Jewish Passover celebration. This connection is crucial for a correct understanding of the New Testament practice of the Lord’s Supper, for it expresses beautifully the wider link to the Jewish idea of table fellowship.
Passover commemorated the moment when God delivered the Israelites out of Egyptian bondage. Jewish families would gather in their homes, eat unleavened bread (to symbolize their quick flight from Egypt), and bitter herbs (to remind them of the hardship they faced in slavery). Though families celebrated the Passover by themselves, they were, essentially, united to the rest of their people by celebrating the moment during the same week and in the same way each year.
The symbolic nature of the Passover celebration itself told the story of God’s deliverance of Israel. In the same way, the Lord’s Supper proclaims the death of Jesus for the sins of His covenant people. Though celebrated in different ways and at different times throughout the year, Communion is the continuing rite of the New Testament church that is encountered in virtually every form of Christianity. As a practice, Communion unites Christians everywhere.
By refusing to share the table with fellow believers in Christ who differ on doctrinal matters not essential to salvation, we turn the biblical understanding of table fellowship upside down. Nowhere does the Bible demand that baptism be a prerequisite for approaching the Lord’s Table. Those who would separate themselves from their brothers and sisters at the Lord’s Table follow in the footsteps of Peter, who withheld table fellowship from the uncircumcised. By making the mark of water baptism a prerequisite to the Lord’s Table, we are essentially claiming through our actions that the non-baptized believers are not true members of the covenant and therefore cannot share in table fellowship with us. We resemble the Pharisees and scribes who grumbled at the Lord’s open welcome to the table of all who had repented of sin and trusted in Him for salvation.
Communion Belongs to the Universal Church
Open Communion is the correct way to administer the Lord’s Supper because this meal is a symbolic commemoration of Christ’s sacrificial death for the sins of all His people. Though individual “families” (local churches) partake of this meal together, it is an event that unites the local families to the one true family of God whose members are scattered throughout the world.
John T. Christian, in an argument for close communion, cited W.W. Gardner’s distinction between “Christian communion” and “church communion.” The first is based upon Christian fellowship, extending to all those who have trusted Christ for salvation. The latter refers to the local church body of believers who have distinct views on specific doctrinal issues. Christian argued that one can have fellowship with fellow believers who differ on the doctrine of baptism, but could not celebrate communion with them in the local church because of these differences.
Gardner and Christian rightly understand that the issue ultimately boils down to the universal vs. local church understanding of the Lord’s Supper. But they are both wrong in creating a false dichotomy between those we can fellowship with, but with whom we cannot share the Lord’s table. Rejecting fellow believers at the Lord’s table who differ with us on the doctrine of baptism is rejecting fellowship with them. Coming to the table of the Lord together serves as the symbol of our unity as fellow members of God’s covenant people. Actions speak louder than words. By not sharing the table of fellowship, our actions are proclaiming that these are outside the covenant, no matter how much our words would speak otherwise.
Furthermore, the Scriptures clearly present the Lord’s Supper as a local church ordinance which is bound up with the invisible universal church. In 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, the Apostle Paul writes:
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of one bread. (ESV)
Clearly Paul is speaking here of the Lord’s Supper with regards to the universal church. He is not in Corinth at the time, yet he still refers to the supper as though he were there physically partaking with them. Notice his use of the word we.
Paul’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper reflects a Jewish view of table fellowship, one that sees the individual expressions of local churches as taking part within the wider framework of God’s covenant people, who are symbolically remembering Jesus’ death for our sins.
John Bunyan seized this textual support for the Lord’s Supper in a universal church context as well, by pointing out that Paul’s letters were written to specific churches within a certain area, but with a wider application for all the believers nearby. He cited Paul’s dedication of 2 Corinthians to those in Corinth and all the saints in Achaia as further evidence of his understanding of the church universal composed of local churches.
Sadly, instead of Communion being a common factor that unites all true believers in Christ, Christian groups have splintered off and retreated to their own self-centered, seemingly pious tables of exclusion, while giving lip service to issues of Christian love and unity. It is heart-breaking that the meal which should be proclaiming to the world the broken body of the crucified Jesus for our sins has instead been twisted into a proclamation to the world of the splintered Body of Christ on earth today – His church. When we advocate close communion, the act of the Lord’s Supper proclaims the broken body of Christ in His church, rather than His broken body on Calvary.
Communion is a foretaste of future fellowship
Open communion is biblical because a correct understanding of the Lord’s Supper brings the past commemoration of Jesus’ death together with the future banquet that God will hold with His people in the new heavens and new earth. Jesus Himself looked forward to the day when He would again “drink of the fruit of the vine” once the Kingdom of God comes in its fullness.
The symbol of the “fruit of the vine” echoes back to the spies in Canaan who brought back grapes as a symbol of hope for the Israelites. The fruit of the promised land was a signpost pointing to the future fulfillment of God’s promise. In the same way, the Lord’s Supper is a present proclamation of a past event until Jesus comes in the future. Though we taste the bitterness of the wine that reminds us of Jesus’ agony on Calvary, we can taste the sweetness of the wine that points us ahead to the future banquet in God’s Kingdom, when we will enjoy perfect fellowship with our King and all the citizens of His Kingdom. We should welcome to the Communion table today all whom we believe will be there on the Last Day.
In his argument for open communion, Bunyan claimed that close communion causes Christians to be angry with one another and distracts them from the more weighty things of God in order to uphold a false wall of division. When these effects are contrasted with the blissful harmony of fellowship that all Christians will enjoy in heaven, they are seen for the evil that they are, and close communion then exposes itself as a practice which spreads prideful and exclusionary attitudes that will be absent from the Lord’s Table in the coming Kingdom.
John T. Christian, in arguing for close communion, believed that there should be six prerequisites before one approaches the table: faith, baptism, church membership, discipline, doctrine, and then the Lord’s Supper. From Christian’s list of qualifications, it becomes clear how easy it is to begin to add additional regulations after baptism is made a prerequisite for taking Communion. One wonders if Christian believed these would be prerequisites for taking part of the feast of the Kingdom promised by God. If so, then one might as well present a salvation of works. If not, then the logical fallacy of the close communion view is evident. For if some will be allowed by God’s grace to break bread in the Kingdom, though in this life they were ignorant regarding true baptism, they should be permitted to break bread by the same grace here on earth, in a foreshadowing of the coming day of unity.
Conclusion
The practice of Open Communion is the only way that is truly biblical, in keeping with the spirit of Scriptural teaching. It reflects the biblical concept of table fellowship and its significance for believers. It correctly places the Lord’s Supper in the wider context of the universal church. Furthermore, it is the only method that accurately gives a foretaste of the glorious feast that God has promised His people in the coming age.
written by Trevin Wax © 2007 Kingdom People blog
© Copyright by Trevin Wax | Print This Post | Share (Twitter, Email, Facebook)
I do not believe you are adequately dealing with the close position. Many (most?) close communion proponents do not suggest there is a NT text explicitly arguing that baptism is prerequisite for partaking of communion.
Instead, they argue that those under discipline should not come to the table (open communion proponents would agree with this), and that the refusal to be baptized is worthy of church discipline. To summarize, refusal to be baptized is worthy of discipline, and no disciplined individual is allowed at the table.
The same argument is used for why paedobaptists cannot be members of Baptist churches (as soon as they become members they would be worthy of discipline for refusing to be baptized).
I am not arguing for a particular position here, but I would be interested in your thoughts. I suppose the key question is this: Is the refusal to be biblically baptized grounds for church discipline?
Joseph Gould | Oct 11, 2007 | Reply
I agree that immersion should be a prerequisite for church membership in a Baptist church. It is important for a church to order itself, and it is not compromising the fellowship of the gospel when a Baptist church has to tell another Christian that baptism is required for church membership.
But with regard to the Lord’s Supper, it is a local church ordinance that points to a feast shared by the universal church. Paul tells the Corinthians to examine themselves… which gives the impression that the bread and wine are not being withheld by the pastor. Each person in the church is making a decision as to whether to partake or not.
I understand and agree that those under local church discipline should not take Communion. But a non-baptized Presbyterian is not under church discipline in a Baptist church. He is not a member. We are not held accountable for his partaking of Communion.
The invitation to the table is a picture of the gospel. “Even though we disagree on important ordinances, we are united by the truth of the gospel and therefore, we receive a foretaste of our future unity at God’s banquet table by inviting you to join us at the table here today.”
trevinwax | Oct 11, 2007 | Reply
Hi, Trevin. I want to preface my comments by saying that I don’t mean to be antagonistic with my comment. It’s very difficult to discern someone’s tone in a blog post, and I assure that this is friendly. You have a very good blog. Now, to proceed…
Based on Ephesians 4:4-6 and other passages, I think that baptism is also an ordinance that inherently points to inclusion in the universal church. I wonder, therefore, how different views of baptism can be used to exclude a genuine believer from church membership?
If you say on one hand that you believe someone is a member of the universal church, and you welcome them to the Lord’s table; can you say on the other hand that even though you firmly believe GOD has accepted them into HIS body, you cannot accept them into yours?
Barry | Oct 11, 2007 | Reply
Trevin,
I appreciate your agruments for open communion. I would like to hold an open communion position, and have nearly been convinced a time or two by Bunyan, but in the end the arguments are not compelling enough to abandon the closed position. Concerning your article, you seem to indicate that the practice of closed communion is primarily in response to doctrinal differences:
“By refusing to share the table with fellow believers in Christ who differ on doctrinal matters not essential to salvation…”
I don’t think doctrinal differences are the reason most churches practice closed communion. Rather, I think it comes from biblical conviction that there is a connection between the Lord’s Table and Church Discipline. Since members of our local church are the only ones who can be under discipline, it seems to follow that only members of our local church should be partaking in the Lord’s Supper. I think a compelling argument for open communion must deal with this issue.
Further, your article seems to focus on how a closed communion position excludes others and promotes disunity. But the closed communion position, which I like to refer to as Covenant Communion, is not about exclusion and disunity but about the unique unity that covenanted members of a local church body have together. As we parake of the “one bread” we show that we are “one body”. “Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Corinthians 10:17).
Something else you may or may not have thought of:
You said: “By refusing to share the table with fellow believers in Christ who differ on doctrinal matters not essential to salvation, we turn the biblical understanding of table fellowship upside down”.
What do you define as doctrinal matters not essential to salvation? Will you allow Max Lucado to your table? Someone who believes in baptismal regeneration? Catholics? Surely there are true believers who belong to the univeral church who are in local churches with unbiblical beliefs, even in regards to salvation. Will they be excluded? You see, I think everyone draws the line in the sand somewhere. I just believe that local church membership is the least offensive and most biblical place to draw that line. Anywhere else you draw it can be pretty arbitrary. If you want to be open, you’ve got to be totally open.
Again, thanks for dealing with this issue. It is a difficult question that every pastor must deal with. I think we all feel the weight of pastoral responsibility that surrounds the Table yet we desire to be open and inclusive as well. I would love to hear your feedback.
In Christ,
Tolpel
Tolpel | Oct 11, 2007 | Reply
Hi Barry,
You pose a good question… one that deserves a post in and of itself. The question of church membership is different than the Communion table.
For example, a church is going to either baptize infants or not. It would be difficult to say that a paedobaptist by conviction can join a Baptist congregation that does not practice the baptism of infants. This does not mean that the paedobaptist is not a member of the universal church, only that church policies might preclude them from uniting with the Baptist congregation.
trevinwax | Oct 11, 2007 | Reply
Tolpel,
I believe “closed communion” is actually a more merciful option than the wishy-washy “close communion.” You’re right. If you are going to practice Communion as a local church ordinance ONLY, then you should just go all the way and not invite anyone but members to the table.
I still see the Open Communion as most biblical, partly because of the double standard almost ALWAYS at work in those who advocate close communion. If the issue is church discipline, why would we share the pulpit with Presbyterians or Anglicans? Would you allow someone under church discipline to get up and preach? Why, then can a Ligon Duncan preach in a Baptist church as a believer from a different denomination? And then why do we bar him from the Lord’s Table because he would be under church discipline if he were a member of our congregation?
The Open Communion position is the only position that takes into account the “communion of saints” that extends beyond the local church walls and denominational borders.
trevinwax | Oct 11, 2007 | Reply
I don’t think the double standard argument regarding a closed communion and open pulpit really hold up. You say that I must only allow members in my pulpit since I only allow members to my communion in order to maintain consistency. One could easily flip the argument and say that you cannot bar anyone from your pulpit since you cannot bar anyone from your communion. But this is silly because preaching and communion are not the same thing. The Lord’s Table is clearly portrayed in Scripture as privelege that is to be withheld from members who are under discipline as a means of correction. I don’t see the pulpit used in this way in the NT.
But I’m not sure you ever answered my concerns, which were:
What do you define as doctrinal matters not essential to salvation? Will you allow Max Lucado to your table? Someone who believes in baptismal regeneration? Catholics? Surely there are true believers who belong to the univeral church who are in local churches with unbiblical beliefs, even in regards to salvation. Will they be excluded?
Finally, with Barry, I concur that it is difficult to discern someone’s tone in these posts. I too assure you these are friendly posts. I truly want to understand your arguments better. You seem like the kind of guy I would happily invite to preach in our pulpit, but not commune at our table (ha, ha).
Tolpel
Tolpel | Oct 11, 2007 | Reply
Tolpel,
It seems like the privilege of giving one pulpit time in your local church is MUCH greater than the privilege of coming to the Lord’s Table. After all, we should be very discerning in who we allow to preach the Word to our congregations. I do not think one must necessarily follow your logic when you say that if one can come to the table, then that person must be welcomed to the pulpit. Obviously, there are some important differences.
But it does not make sense for one to be given the awesome privilege of preaching the Gospel in our pulpit and then denying them the opportunity to present that Gospel symbolically by proclaiming the Lord’s death through partaking of the Supper.
Regarding the “drawing of the line” with regards to fencing the table, I’m not sure that Scripture talks a lot about who we allow at the Table. Scripture tells us to examine ourselves. Paul does not tell the Church to do the examination.
Obviously, if the church has placed someone under discipline, and that person has continued in sin, the “examing of oneself” should show one to be lacking and in this case, the person would voluntarily submit to the church by not taking Communion. (This is the way it was handled in Romania.)
Tolpel, please explain to me how you are sure on a Sunday morning that the people who take Communion are on the same page as you theologically? How do you know that good baptized Baptists are not actually trusting in works for salvation? How do you know that someone isn’t committing adultery? Or hiding a porn addiction? Or doing some other secret sin that would disqualify them from partaking? The point is… you don’t.
You tell the congregation to examine themselves. You don’t know who is “worthy” to partake. (After all, are any of us truly worthy, except through Christ?) So, you give the congregation the warning, but you ultimately leave it to the congregants to decide whether or not they will partake.
If someone partakes in an unworthy manner, that person pays the price – not you. It is not our duty to bar people from the Table, but to welcome true believers to join us, albeit with the appropriate warning against partaking in an unworthy manner.
trevinwax | Oct 11, 2007 | Reply
Trevin,
i think a lot of the posts made against open communion have been good ones. However does not this issue really go back to how important baptism is?
Baptism logically comes prior to communion. it makes no sense if it does not. One has faith then one is baptized then one joins the church and takes communion. That is how I see how the NT makes the connection between the sacraments and church life.
Baptism is the action that one takes to display one’s faith and become a part of the church. Baptism is the first act of the new church member. Where in the NT can we see one taking communion before being baptized. It always seem to show that one believes then is baptized. Then they are part of the church (universal and local body). I do not know if one can make a difference between the two in the Biblical text. There was no other denomination or other church excpet for the church which the local body was part of. So if you were part of the universal church you were part of the local church and vice versa.
So to me the open communion model does not make sense for Baptists.
Blackhaw | Oct 11, 2007 | Reply
I agree that baptism comes before communion. I also agree that paedobaptism is no baptism at all. (I’m a Baptist, after all.)
Yet I also recognize that the local church ordinance of Communion belongs to the universal church, so that whenever someone who is not a Baptist, does not share my convictions on baptism, but who believes the Gospel – when that person visits my church, I will not tell them “You cannot sit at the table with me.”
In many ways, I wonder just how strongly we believe in justification by faith. If we are ushered into the covenant people and also marked out as the covenant people based on our faith in Jesus Christ alone, then we should be like Paul – ready to share table fellowship with ALL who believe this, not like Peter, who decided to segregate based on circumcision.
In some ways, it’s as if we have decided to segregate based on the covenant sign of baptism, when the Lord’s Supper invites us to the table where all true believers in Christ are welcome.
I still refer back to my earlier comment… How do you know ANYONE in your congregation is worthy to partake?
trevinwax | Oct 11, 2007 | Reply
“I agree that baptism comes before communion. I also agree that paedobaptism is no baptism at all. (I’m a Baptist, after all.)”
Unfortunately not all Baptists believe one has to be baptized (in any sense) before taking communion.
“Yet I also recognize that the local church ordinance of Communion belongs to the universal church, so that whenever someone who is not a Baptist, does not share my convictions on baptism, but who believes the Gospel – when that person visits my church, I will not tell them “You cannot sit at the table with me.””
But you will say to that person you are not baptized. So what does Baptism mean then? Is it such a small thing?
“In many ways, I wonder just how strongly we believe in justification by faith. If we are ushered into the covenant people and also marked out as the covenant people based on our faith in Jesus Christ alone, then we should be like Paul – ready to share table fellowship with ALL who believe this, not like Peter, who decided to segregate based on circumcision.”
I do not know if that comparison is fair in this case because I do not see either one stating that one does not have to be baptized in order to take communion. It seems that Paul would state that one has to be baptized before one partakes of communion but Christianity is open to any person regardless of their sex, race, or nationality.
I think some protestants have made too big of deal of sola fide. Many protestants now argue that although one does not have to be baptized to be saved, I have no reason to believe that one is saved before they are baptized. (the one caveat is that they have just professed faith in Christ)
“In some ways, it’s as if we have decided to segregate based on the covenant sign of baptism, when the Lord’s Supper invites us to the table where all true believers in Christ are welcome.”
First I do not know if all true believers are necessarily granted a place at the table. It seems that in no time in history (until recently) did the church argue for open communion. Also why is it okay to segregate on one of teh sacraments and not hte other? That seems inconsistent.
” still refer back to my earlier comment… How do you know ANYONE in your congregation is worthy to partake?”
Through fellowship. I am sure there is no way to fully know for sure. But we can to a great extant know. And that 1% or so of unsurredness the church has to leave that up to the partaker and God alone.
Blackhaw | Oct 11, 2007 | Reply
Trevin, I thought your post was good and your arguments are reasonably well thought out. I am “on the fence” on the issue myself, and I appreciate your post.
G. F. McDowell | Oct 11, 2007 | Reply
Trevin,
I appreciate the thought you have put into this. With McDowell, I am on the fence on this issue. I see the arguments from both sides, and at different times am swayed different ways.
My initial question, which I believe is the key question, has still not been answered.
Is refusal to be biblically baptized grounds for church discipline? If someone is worthy of discipline, I do not see how we can invite them to the table. On the other hand, if it is not worthy of discipline, then the open communion position makes more sense.
Joseph Gould | Oct 11, 2007 | Reply
G.F.,
I admit that I’ve gone back and forth on this issue too, in the past. After some recent reflection, I am no longer on the fence and am totally in the Open Communion side. (I have great respect for those who disagree with me.)
Joseph,
You ask a good question: “Is refusal to be biblically baptized grounds for church discipline?” Well, as a Baptist, you aren’t a member and are thus not eligible for church discipline until you are baptized. Are Baptists going to practice church discipline on those from other denominations? I don’t think so. I don’t think that’s our place.
I ask you the exact same question, but regarding a different issue. “Is refusal to be biblically baptized grounds for church discipline?” If someone is worthy of discipline, I do not see how we can invite them to the PULPIT.
Do you see the double standard here? What’s R.C. Sproul, Ligon Duncan, and others doing in Baptist pulpits if we consider them to be “under discipline”? The point is… if you are going to reject these men because of their errant views on baptism, then we shouldn’t invite them to the table or the pulpit.
Yet, if you invite them to the pulpit to preach the gospel with words, why in the world would you deny them the table where they preach the gospel through signs?
trevinwax | Oct 11, 2007 | Reply
“Are Baptists going to practice church discipline on those from other denominations? I don’t think so. I don’t think that’s our place.”
So would you allow a visiting heretic (such as a modalist) to take communion in your church on the grounds that they are not a member? I think it is the church’s place to deny the table if someone has been disciplined, is in the process of discipline, or should be disciplined. If you open the table wide, you must be prepared to fence it just as wide.
Regarding shared pulpits, this is not relevant in deciding whether or not a paedobaptist is qualified to take communion in your church. It is a fallacious argument. Being inconsistent on shared pulpits does not mean that the close communion position is wrong, it only means those holding to close communion may be wrong on shared pulpits.
Related to this, should we make a distinction between allowing a paedobaptist to preach from a local church pulpit and allowing them to preach from a pulpit at a church conference, such as T4G? Just wondering on this one.
And for the record, I don’t necessarily support close communion. I am merely arguing as one fully convinced of it.
Joseph Gould | Oct 11, 2007 | Reply
Joseph,
How would you know if a heretic (a modalist) was visiting your church? I could understand that sort of knowledge being commonplace in a small village where everyone knows everyone. But most of us don’t know all the visitors that we have.
When you have the Lord’s Supper at your church, do you know everyone there personally? Do you know where all your visitors on any given Sunday morning have come from? Do you know without a shadow of a doubt who “has been disciplined, is in the process of discipline, or should be disciplined?” I don’t think you know this even of your own members, much less the visitors that join us.
If you are concerned about unworthy or unqualified people taking the Lord’s Supper, you might as well go full-blown Closed Communion (local church members only). You’ll miss the universality of Communion, but at least you won’t be forced into the awkward position of trying to dictate who can and can’t take Communion.
Nowhere does Scripture teach the Church to withhold Communion from its members. Scripture teaches church members to refrain from taking Communion in an unworthy manner.
Regarding the pulpit issue… I do not think it is a fallacious argument. The close communion position is simply inconsistent with the fellowship we maintain and cherish as Christian brethren, and my purpose in returning to the pulpit question is to show how its inconsistency with the Close Communion position undermines the weight of support in its favor.
trevinwax | Oct 11, 2007 | Reply
Trevin,
Don’t you in the last post make Joseph’s argument for him? If someone knows one is under discipline (for whatever reason) then one does not share the table with them. They are not allowed to partake of the Supper. This is the case for those in other denominations which teach padeobaptism. Baptists know that the padeobaptists should be under discipline. It is just like he knew that ther is a heretic or someone in unrepentant sin in the church on a Sunday. He would not allow those people to partake of the Lord’s Supper. But you are right we will not always know 100%. That is a practical reality. Although better fellowship in one’s church helps. If the members of the church really know each other and get into each others lives (in a good way) then church discipline becomes possible. But in the end one has to trust the individual to obey by the rules of the church as the church understands scripture. So if a visitor comes into the church and no one knows he is an Arian and then partakes of communion I would say it most likely falls back on the individual not hte church. That is as long as the church has done everything it can. And this is also given that the LS should not be done in a closed manner. That it would betray what communion is really about. So I think in practical terms the church has to trust the individual. And if the church does all it can to weed out those who should not participate then the church is not responsible.
Blackhaw | Oct 12, 2007 | Reply
I understand the desire and am 100% for the goal of a church knowing its members well enough to have a deep knowledge of each person’s spiritual state. Unfortunately, for most churches that are not house-churches, this is almost impossible in our day.
At some point, even you fall back to the “trust the individual”… just that you say the church must do everything possible to guard the table beforehand. I agree that we “trust the invididual,” only I say that is what Scripture teaches from the very beginning.
We’re really not too far off from each other here. Even most “Close Communion” churches are not in a position to actually deny the cup or the bread from anyone. They may “fence the table” with a warning, but then they pass the plate. If a heretic partakes, the church is not at fault. Scripture clearly teaches that the individual drinks judgment upon himself… he does not drink judgment upon the local church that gave it to him in the first place.
Trevin Wax | Oct 12, 2007 | Reply
Trevin,
Great post and discussion. Here are some thoughts I’ve been having. One relates to Judas, and whether or not we believe he was present at the Last Supper. If he was, is this an example of open communion (and of someone bringing judgment on himself)? Or if Jesus waited for Judas to leave (as someone like a McCarthur believes) is this an example of closed communion?
By the way, I’ve always been curious how someone who isn’t a true believer would be more condemned by participating in communion than s/he already is?
One last thought and this is for those who believe in closed communion. Would you be willing to share communion with John Calvin? Although many baptists follow much of his theology, Calvin was a pedo-baptist. Would you bar this fellow believer from fellowship at the Lord’s Table?
Greg Drummond | Oct 13, 2007 | Reply
Trevin,
I wish I had more time to discuss this important matter with you, but I must make this my last comment. First, in regards to your comment: “I do not think one must necessarily follow your logic when you say that if one can come to the table, then that person must be welcomed to the pulpit. Obviously, there are some important differences.” I would like to point out this was your logic, not mine. I merely reversed your logic to make the very point that there are “important differences” between the Table and the pulpit which should not be confused. Secondly, I still have not got a clear answer to the question: “What do you define as doctrinal matters essential to salvation?” When you say “By refusing to share the table with fellow believers in Christ who differ on doctrinal matters not essential to salvation..” you seem to imply that you yourelf would refuse the table when doctrinal matters essential to salvation are at stake. Is this true? Do you in fact draw the line in the sand somewhere or is the Table a free for all, open to Catholics, Mormons, Open Theists, anyone who calls himself a Christian? I cannot understand your position until I know if you believe the table is open to anyone who thinks they are a Christian or if it is to be guarded by certain parameters, such as matters essential to salvation. If it is to be guarded by certain parameters, I would like these parameters defined. Again, this is a freindly post. I want to understand your position better but have not received candid answers to my questions so far. I am not a very good writer. But if you would like to understand by position better, you may read an essay I wrote called “The Case for Covenant Communion.” It is found at http://www.npbcwebsite.org/communion. Looking forward to your answers and reading your blog more frequently. God bless your ministry.
Tolpel | Oct 15, 2007 | Reply
Hi Tolpel,
I appreciate the tone of your post and your good questions. I clicked on the link you included in your last comment, but that site does not seem to be working.
It seems that your concern about giving Communion to someone outside the faith should probably lead you to “Closed Communion.” That way, there is very little doubt. Only the local church members are allowed at the table. I respect this position and those who hold it.
You ask me about the parameters by which we “guard the table.” I believe and advocate that only those who have trusted in Jesus alone for their salvation and who are living lives bearing the fruit of their repentance should partake of the Lord’s Supper. I believe it is good to give a warning about profaning the Body of the Lord by partaking in an unworthy manner. My Open Communion position does not in any way negate the seriousness with which I take Communion.
However… and this is a big however… it is ultimately up to the invididual to choose to partake or not. I am not going to skip over people who look like they might be from a paedobaptist denomination when I pass the plate. We are not going to forcefully withhold the bread and the cup from a Roman Catholic who is visiting. (I would probably not even know if they were Roman Catholic.)
I believe it is the minister’s job to state clearly the significance of Communion and to issue the warning. After that, it is up to the conscience of the individual.
Yes, it is possible that heretics or people who consider themselves Christians but aren’t – yes those people might actually slip in and take Communion at our church. And I suspect that even in Closed Communion circles, you have the same issue, just that the heresy is more masked.
The point is… you do not ultimately know where one stands with God. You do not ultimately know if one is necessarily in the Covenant. We are responsible to administer the sacraments biblically, and in the case of the Lord’s Supper, this means we issue the appropriate warning and then trust that if someone takes the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner, God deals with that person directly and does not hold the church responsible.
I do not see a Scriptural basis for “guarding” the table, as if Jesus needs to be protected. I do see a Scriptural mandate for individuals to examine themselves before partaking.
trevinwax | Oct 15, 2007 | Reply
Thanks for your clarification in your last post. I understand better where you are coming from. If you are still interested in reading my essay. You can google and you should get a link to the site that works. Sincerely, Tolpel.
Tolpel | Oct 15, 2007 | Reply
You can google: Case for Covenant Communion
Tolpel | Oct 15, 2007 | Reply
Hello there,
I was just reading all the posts and wanted to add something. I respect all your decisions concerning this issue; however, if we take the passover ordinance in context we find that it was very much closed communion. Read Exodus 12:43-49.
Exodus 12:43-49 43 And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof: 44 But every man’s servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. 45 A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof. [note: a stranger, foreigner, or hired servant could not partake of the Lord's passover supper with Israel] 46 In one house shall it be eaten; [note: local congregation observance] thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof. 47 All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. 48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. 49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.
Strangers could come to the Passover Supper, but only after they had been circumcised and subscribed to the Lord’s Law of Worship for Israel. Anyone is able to partake of the Lord’s Supper, but you must meet the requirements that the Lord has established.
If we take this into context, there was a reason that Jesus Christ only invited his twelve to partake of the Lord’s Supper. It was the fact that the Apostles were His church. Think back and know that there were many that were saved at the time and were even baptized by John the Baptist. However, what was the imporatance of only taking the twelve. According to the law at that time, no strangers were permitted to take the Lord’s Supper. Not only was Jesus Christ showing us that he practiced closed communion, but that he upheld the law as well. Also when Paul addresses his letters, he is talking to individual churches. The establishment of the church is not man made, but Jesus Christ established the church, for the purpose to carry out the great commandments that Israel (jews) – His chosen people, did not do.
As far as Judas is concerned, Jesus Christ excused Judas for the purpose to show us that if one had sin reigning in his life, he/she would not have the right to participate in this ordinance. The fact that in passover it was leaven that represented sin, and there could be no leaven for seven days. If we have sin (leaven) in our lives, we cannot partake of it ourself. Why should one excuse himself from the Lord’s Supper. In the book of joshua, and the story of Achin, the lord told Joshua and the israelites to not take anything with them after war, and one man of 2.5 million or more jews, took something and accursed the whole people. This was to say, God does not judge the person but looks at Israel as a whole. Therefore, a church should beware of who partakes in the Lord’s Supper. This is a very serious matter, but the Bible lays out this foundation which Jesus then later established in HIS church.
Ryan Caves | Dec 13, 2007 | Reply
People who believe one has to be baptized in water to be saved will struggle with the open communion interpretation. This is the stronghold. This division of the body is not in love! Closed communion is really not discerning the Lords body. Not discerning the weakest of His sincere followers for whom our Lord Jesus gave His life for. If they are allowed to hear the word they should be given the opportunity to partake of the word. Mat 23:13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of Heaven against men. For you neither go in, nor do you allow those entering to go in.” They have transgressed and have failed to realize that the message of communion is the message of the gospel! If the Lords supper is correctly presented and remembered I have not problem by giving room for unbelievers to partake by faith and eat of the body and the blood of Christ for their sin. Those who play games and pretend to be believers the Lord will judge! Shalom.
Peter Malaczynski | Jan 13, 2008 | Reply
Looks like nobody has commented in a while, but as I read through all the comments there are a few things that seem to me to stick out like a sore thumb.
To set the record straight, I’m currently in the camp of Open Communion, though if I were in a different forum, I might be considered an adherent of the Close Communion. I say this, because the most striking criticism of Open Communion is that it means that it is open to anyone, even those who may not have accepted Christ and moved on in an affirmation of Christian faith.
To be fair, it sounds to me like everyone here is a Closed communicant – it’s just that each of you defines where to close the door. Some want to draw the line at the church door, others want to draw the line at the door of the convention hall, and still others want to draw the line at the door of Christ. The one thing in common with all three positions is Christ, and that’s as it should be, because it’s the first door that you come to when you approach the Table of Communion.
I found Trevin’s article to be well written and including a proper understanding of the Jewish understanding of a fellowship meal. That helped to give the proper context to how we should approach the Lord’s Supper.
Here’s how I would answer a few of your questions:
<<>> – Joseph Gould
Sure, but what’s that got to do with Christian Fellowship?
<<>> – Tolpel
You hit the nail on the head, Tolpel. But, is that what Christ intended? If not, then the practice of Closed Communion is Biblically wrong. What is “biblical conviction”? Is that the same as being convinced the Bible says something but being unable to point to where it says that? (There’s a lot of loving sarcasm there, I’m not trying to be hateful or disagreeable)
<<>> – Tolpel
That’s very true, Tolpel. Open Communionists must deal with that issue, but so too must those in the Closed Communion camp. Here’s where BOTH of us have to come together. There is this mistaken belief on both sides of this argument that if I belong to the local church at Ephesus, and I am visiting my brother in Corinth and I stop at the church on Sunday to worship, that somehow, miraculously, I am freed from the obligation I have to the perfect law of liberty.
As a member of the universal church of Christ, I am bound by His commands to love my brother, and to live in light of the commands of God.
If you join me in worship at my church on Sunday, you give me implicit authority to discipline you according to the Biblical instruction given in Matthew 18. Why should you be immune from discipline just because you are away from those who may know you best? And it’s best to remember that when those instructions were given us by Christ, there was NO LOCAL ASSEMBLY yet. Christ was referring to His universal church.
If I were disciplined in Ephesus Baptist Church, and visited Corinth Baptist Church in order to avoid that discipline, it would be the obligation of the Corinth elders to determine if I am in good standing in Ephesus. While that may have been difficult because of the distances in the times of Jesus, today it is as easy as hitting the enter key on the keyboard of your email software.
Of all the comments I’ve heard, the Biblical one that seems to keep being ignored is 1 Corinthians 11:28.
Mark Pepin | Mar 24, 2008 | Reply
Sorry, messed up on the quotations!
Mark Pepin | Mar 24, 2008 | Reply
this is very interesting.
A bit off topic (or not?) but your point
“Paul’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper reflects a Jewish view of table fellowship, one that sees the individual expressions of local churches as taking part within the wider framework of God’s covenant people, who are symbolically remembering Jesus’ death for our sins.”
shows up another deeply divisive issue. ie. That there is still a wide range of diversity of understanding in the communion because of course not all Christians (whether they are immersed or spinkled) believe that the communion is symbolic.
lorna (see-through faith) | Apr 18, 2008 | Reply
and a point to J. who commented #15
So would you allow a visiting heretic (such as a modalist) to take communion in your church on the grounds that they are not a member? I think it is the church’s place to deny the table if someone has been disciplined, is in the process of discipline, or should be disciplined. If you open the table wide, you must be prepared to fence it just as wide.
It is impossible to know what visitors really believe. If you open the communion to anyone but local church members (including Christians even Baptists from ‘down the road’)you will never know whether they are (really) an heretic or not. Is totally closed communion the answer? I dare to say not. If the communion is at a service anyone can come to, then I say that the altar can be open to those whose conscience allows them to come forward. After all God is the judge of our hearts – not others!
lorna (see-through faith) | Apr 18, 2008 | Reply
At my church , A Baptist Church ( Southern ) the Pastor has withheld the Lord’s Supper for more than a year. His claim is that he is the Pastor and the judge of the congregation and that they are unrepentant sinners who are not worthy of the Lord’s body and blood. I have been a member for 5 years and we have observed this ordinance only twice in my five years. I say this is wrong . Can you please clarify ?
J Carter | Jan 30, 2009 | Reply
Would like to here your comments on the last question by J Carter . Jan 30. Many thanks
Amanda -
Amanda | Feb 19, 2009 | Reply
I would like to hear your respond to J. Carter
about his pastor has denied communion for 5 years.
jazze | Aug 1, 2009 | Reply