Quote:
Originally Posted by Gomarus  Our church notes that the Lord's Supper is for believers and invites guests to partake "if they have trusted Christ as Lord and Savior." Beyond that it is up to one's own conscience. i tend to agree with this approach. |
This is also how my church deals with that. We are a baptist church, but if a guest whom is from another church comes, and gives a profession of faith and belongs to a local Body (even if it Presbyterian) were he also participated with the communion, he is allowed to joined us.
Personally, i hold more to the view, that Lords supper has only be taken we at your own local church, were you are under the authority of church and the elders. Because why should it for a church be enough only to hear a profession of faith, not maybe knowing that this person is under discipline of his own local church, and what a gast who is a apart of a church with seriously heresy like a hyper-charismatic movement/church ? Why should we think that we can participated, while this church does not know me at all ?
These questions iam considering, and iam not to dogmatic yet, but iam leaning towards close-communion.
Were iam wrong with this, because i feel that iam pretty lonely with this view ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qoute
"......Paul's teaching that communion should be limited to the local church is found in 1 Cor. 11:18-20. "When ye come together in the church." Church always means the local body or institution, when used as Paul uses it in that passage. They came together as a church to observe the Lord's Supper. It is a church ordinance. It cannot be observed by conventions, associations or fellowships. They came together as a church to observe it. There is no more warrant for a member of another Baptist church observing the Lord's Supper with the Corinth church than there is for a member of another church voting in the church at Corinth in the election of a pastor or the reception of new members. The Lord's Supper as truly as church govermnent, is a local church affair. There is reason as well as Scripture for that. No church ought to extend its communion beyond its discipline. If so, as lax as many churches are in their discipline, there will be heresy and immorality both present, and if they are present, it ceases to be the Lord's Supper.
Paul emphasizes in this epistle is also found in 1 Cor. 11:18-20. In that passage Paul very plainly says that if heresies or division is either there, it is not possible to eat the Lord's Supper. This goes back to the passage in chapter 10 where he emphasizes the three-fold oneness or unity at the Lord's Table. Here he puts the negative side. If heresy is present, unity in doctrine is destroyed. If division is present, unity in doctrine is destroyed. Open communion destroys and frustrates the Lord's Supper so completely that it ceases to be the Lord's Supper and becomes a social feast. But modernism and fundamentalism in the same church effectually destroys its unity and makes impossible the observance of the Supper. So does gross immorality. See I Corinthians chapter 5....."