The PuritanBoard - View Single Post - Lord's supper but not under the authority of that local church ?

Hippo · #16 (**permalink**) 03-29-2008, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danmpem

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hippo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mayflower

This is also how my church deals with that. We are a baptist church, but if a gast 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 ?

The reasons why I believe that you are wrong here are as follows:

1) The church is a universal body bigger than a single assembly
2) No one ver knows the heart of a particular church member, not even their home church.
3) One of the important messages of the Lords Supper is the unity of the church, this is undermined by closed communion.
4) If someone "fools" a church it is himself that he is bringing judgement on, not the church that is acting in good faith
5) Partaking of the Lords Supper is a duty, people travel now and in the ancient world, does this mean that they are effectively excommunicated?
6) In my experience people have to state that they are not only a member of a church but a member in good standing. Why would you disbelieve someone without any grounds for suspision?

While I am still considering the various Reformed positions on the Lord's Supper, I can't help but think of Ambrose stopping Emperor Theodosius from taking part of the Lord Supper, and then saying "How could you lift up in prayer hands steeped in the blood of so unjust a massacre?"

I doubt if anybody here would suggest that a church can refuse to allow participation in the Lords Supper if theer are specific concerns over the state of the partaker, but rather whether such exclusion should be automatic if not a memeber of the local church or alternately what should be required for a visitor to partake.