Iam becoming more and more convince of the close-communion view. So iam wondering, and would like to know if any members, would partake at the Lord supper, at a church (baptist or presbyterian) were you attended as a guest and not being under the authority of that local church ?

__________________
* Ralph Wilms (7-10-1974)
* Church : Christengemeente Roermond (The Netherlands)
* Credobaptist who hold towards Covenant Theology
* Husband of Reena & father of Naomie and Gideon
* 1729 Goat Yard Declaration of Faith
* 1646 & 1689 Baptist Confession of faith
* 1595 The Lambeth Articles
* 1618-1619 The Canons of Dordt

On at least a theoretical level I am fully convinced that either not to partake of the Lords supper at a Church that you are attending (as long as you are a member of and not under the discipline of your own local church) or to withold the Lords Supper from a Christian (in good standing with his local church) is deeply sinful.

Being a member of the physical church is of vital importance, and that church is a universal not a denominational body.

Of course there are grey areas that have to be tackled, but we should not try to create problems that are not really there. If someone takes the elements unworthily then they must take the consequenses, it is more their problem than the Churches problem.

The chief problem is what is a true church and what is a member, but these problems can and should be approached with charity.

__________________
Mike
London City Presbyterian Church
London
England

"Surely, we wish to be orthodox, but we must first learn what real orthodoxy is. Surely, we wish to be progressive, but we must first have a basis to progress from."

This of course relates closely with how we treat guest preachers and visting missionaries.

To support them or lend them the pulpit and then not allow them to break bread with the church seems horribly contradictory. We believe you enough to support you or let you preach, but not to eat with us.

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

The Directory for the Publik Worship of God says,

I see no requirement for membership in that specific assembly, and if the table is properly "fenced" it should be open to all who profess Christ and are seeking to follow Him faithfully. And as Hippo so accurately put it, the "church is a universal not a denominational body." It is the Lord's Table, not the Baptist's or the Presbyterian's table.

__________________
~James Helbert~, Wytheville, VA
Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCUS
TheBibleAlone.com / The Edinburgh Inn
"Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?” - Zechariah 3:2

I would partake without hesitation unless I had significant doctrinal disagreements with them. If I found myself in a RCC or Lutheran church I would abstain.

__________________
Steve Butts - Former SBC-er
Three Forms of Unity - Bradenton CRC - Bradenton, Florida
(A conservative member in a conservative congregation)

"It is a good thing God chose me before I was born, because he surely would not have afterwards." — C.H. Spurgeon

Concur. The Lord's Supper is for all those who are members of the body of Christ.

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Grace Baptist Church
Anne Arundel County, Maryland

Deo volente

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.

__________________
Jim
1689 LBCF
Independent Bible Church
North Texas, USA

Agreed. This is our approach.

__________________
Ivan Schoen, Pastor
Maranatha Baptist Church
Poplar Grove, Illinois USA
http://maranatha-sbc.org/
Husband to Nancy
Father to Sherril, Sarah, Kathryn
Grandfather to Phillip
Faith is the refusal to panic. Martyn Lloyd-Jones

We believe in close communion. That entails that visitors, wishing to celebrate with us, must, before the service, request permission from consistory. Generally this permission is granted to visitors from other churches of our denomination, as well as sister churches. As well, if any one were to visit, of whom we would be able to ascertain he/she is one in faith with us, would be allowed to partake as well.

Have recently run into an abomination of the Lord's Table, where at the Libertine Evangelical Highschool were some of our children are schooled, they were pretty near forcing the children to take the crackers and grape juice at a passion week chapel.

We will be changing schools...

__________________
Bert Mulder
Elder of the First Protestant Reformed Church of Edmonton
Edmonton Alberta Canada

This is why close communion is sometimes a bit of a misnomer, I would call what you describe as guarded communion, as you are open to those from other denominations taking part after reasonable safeguards.

Some people make a huge fuss about having to contact the church first as if the church has no right to consider your circumstances.

Agree that 'close' is confusing. But it is not the same as 'closed'.

God has given us, as elders in the church, the duty to guard the sacraments, as well as the preaching...

I like the term 'guarded communion', also as we are guards on the walls of Zion.

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....."

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?

__________________
Mason
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA)
New York, NY

"Come now, and let us reason together," says the Lord, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool." - Isaiah 1:18

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?"

__________________
Dan Pemberton
Vacaville, CA

Member, First Baptist Church San Luis Obispo
Formerly ABUSA (We left, so I guess that makes us American Baptists Unleashed!)

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.

In the case of gross public sin, the suspension, according to reformed church polity, would basically be automatic. The consistory would not really have a choice in the matter.

In the case of private sin, there would be a process involved, basically according to Mat. 18. If the member is unrepentant, the consistory would proceed to the formal censure, starting with silent censure, and suspension from the Lord's Table.

In case of doubt, where there is a possibility the Lord's Table could be profaned, but either the facts are not clear, there is not enough time, or to remove offense in the congregation, the consistory may ask a member to abstain.

Why abstain?

__________________
R. Anthony Coletti
Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Jonesborough, TN
[i]et venite et arguite me dicit Dominus[/i]