Historical Question regarding Close Communion

[Kaalvenist]

The following denominations formerly maintained close communion, or the principle that only communicant members in good standing of a congregation (or presbytery/classis) of the denomination could partake of the Lord's Supper:

Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
Christian Reformed Church
Reformed Presbyterian Church, General Synod (New Lights)
United Presbyterian Church of North America

I realize that the last two denominations no longer exist -- the New Light RPs, through successive mergers in 1965 and 1982, ended up in the PCA; and the UPCNA, through mergers in 1958 and 1983, ended up in the PCUSA. But all of these denominations, for quite some time in their histories, maintained the position of close communion.

Does anyone know (or better, can anyone provide documentation) when these denominations abandoned close communion?

 

[Scott1]

I'm not sure this will directly answer your question, but perusing this at the PCA historical center, there is some good information about the "new lights" and their history:

http://www.pcahistory.org/findingaids/rpces/history/03.pdf

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Maybe I was taught wrong but isn't the term "closed" communion? At my old church we had what was called "close" as opposed to "closed" communion and the session would allow others apart from church members to partake after they met with the session and were approved to do so.

 

[dannyhyde]

The following denominations formerly maintained close communion, or the principle that only communicant members in good standing of a congregation (or presbytery/classis) of the denomination could partake of the Lord's Supper:

Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
Christian Reformed Church
Reformed Presbyterian Church, General Synod (New Lights)
United Presbyterian Church of North America

I realize that the last two denominations no longer exist -- the New Light RPs, through successive mergers in 1965 and 1982, ended up in the PCA; and the UPCNA, through mergers in 1958 and 1983, ended up in the PCUSA. But all of these denominations, for quite some time in their histories, maintained the position of close communion.

Does anyone know (or better, can anyone provide documentation) when these denominations abandoned close communion?

The position you are describing is called "closed" communion. The CRC and it's historical predecessors in the Netherlands have practiced "close" communion, meaning, all those with a faith "close" to theirs. For example, the Synod of Dort's Church Order says communion was open to all who profess the Reformed religion, not just those who were members of the Dutch church. You can read more about this in Van Dellen and Monsma's Church Order Commentary.

 

[JOwen]

Historically, both terms are correct. "Close" permits baptized, confessing members of other congregations and even federations who have a like confession to come to the table, providing that have either a letter of attestation from their consistory/kirk session and/or have met with the ruling body of the communion they wish to attend to ask permission to the table. The Free Reformed Churches of North America hold to such a position. It is in our Church Order. This means that people who are visiting from another federation (URC, OPC, NRC, HRC, Free Church Continuing, etc.) may be granted access to the table while they sojourn amongst us. Close here refers to theological consanguinity.

"Closed" refers to the position that only allows baptized confessing members of their own Church to attend Holy Supper. I believe the Canadian Reformed have historically held to this practice.

 

[coramdeo]

I would like to hear from some Baptist on this issue. I know that the SBC local church where I was originally a member, practiced a close communion, but the AB church my son goes to practices closed
communion. The AB church that I attend is very lose with it all. That SBC church above is also now very lose. By lose, I mean they run ads inviting the community to come!

 

[Notthemama1984]

Growing up a Baptist I only heard that the table was a Christian table and anyone who professed to be a Christian could partake.

 

[Herald]

As an RB church we open the table
to all professed believers who have examined themselves and who are not under active church discipline.

 

[Ivan]

As an RB church we open the table
to all professed believers who have examined themselves and who are not under active church discipline.

 

[rbcbob]

I would like to hear from some Baptist on this issue. I know that the SBC local church where I was originally a member, practiced a close communion, but the AB church my son goes to practices closed
communion. The AB church that I attend is very lose with it all. That SBC church above is also now very lose. By lose, I mean they run ads inviting the community to come!

In the last quarter of the 18th century the "Communion Controversy" raged among English Baptists.

For Open Communion there were:
John C. Ryland
Daniel Turner
John Brown (Kettering)

For Closed Communion there were:
Abraham Booth
Andrew Fuller

 

[Scott1]

JOwen
Historically, both terms are correct. "Close" permits baptized, confessing members of other congregations and even federations who have a like confession to come to the table, providing that have either a letter of attestation from their consistory/kirk session and/or have met with the ruling body of the communion they wish to attend to ask permission to the table. The Free Reformed Churches of North America hold to such a position. It is in our Church Order. This means that people who are visiting from another federation (URC, OPC, NRC, HRC, Free Church Continuing, etc.) may be granted access to the table while they sojourn amongst us. Close here refers to theological consanguinity.

Jerrold,

A few questions about how this might work in practice if you are free to answer:

1) Does the meeting with the ruling body often occur right before a corporate worship service?
2) How might a visitor know of this policy in advance of corporate worship?
3) Is this process explained during corporate worship (e.g. "If you are a member in good standing of an evangelical church and have met with our session,")
4) Any idea where the line might be drawn on a denomination membership? I'm assuming one must be a believer, in good standing of a "true church" denomination.
(e.g. If you clearly had a believer in say a New Wineskin coalition church of the PCUSA, would they be considered? Would PCA, ARP type communions ordinarily be sufficient? How about EPC?)

 

[southern]

I would like to hear from some Baptist on this issue. I know that the SBC local church where I was originally a member, practiced a close communion, but the AB church my son goes to practices closed
communion. The AB church that I attend is very lose with it all. That SBC church above is also now very lose. By lose, I mean they run ads inviting the community to come!

Historically, while there have been Baptists who were 'Open Communion' (ie John Bunyan) most, especially in early Southern Baptist life were 'Close Communion'. They would only allow those who were saved and baptized to partake of the Lord's Supper (R.B.C. Howell, J.L. Dagg). They did not differ from many of their paedobaptist brethren according to this principle but only according to practice. Since they recongized nothing but immersion to be baptism then they would not allow paedobaptists to partake of the Lord's Supper since they had never been baptized. According to all that I have read, this was the most commonly held belief. To see another view you can read Bunyan's "Differences in judgment about Water-Baptism no Bar to Communion" (Robert Hall also).

You can read J.L. Dagg's defense of the stricter position in his Manual of Church Order found online at Founders.org. You may find it interesting that he would allow paedobaptists to preach though.

Today you have those who will not allow anyone who is not on their actual church role partake. Dagg above did not take it that far as he acknowledges that anyone that is fit for membership can be admitted to the table.

 

[Kaalvenist]

The position is referred to as either "close" or "closed." Reformed (and Baptist) churches have tended to use the term "close," Lutheran churches tend to use the term "closed." I know less of how it has worked in Dutch Reformed denominations than in dissenting Scottish Presbyterian churches.

I know that there is a great deal of historic revisionism surrounding the use of those terms (e.g. I've heard several make claims regarding "close" vs. "closed" communion, without any relation to the terms or positions which were actually maintained). I can't help but think that this might be the same with regard to allowing members of other denominations with a similar confessional adherence, that we are reading our modern situation (with ecclesiastical fellowships like NAPARC and the ICRC) back into the practice of earlier periods of our churches. Are there examples of churches following the Secession of 1834 at that time allowing members of the National Dutch Church to commune, or vice versa?

But I'm also guessing that, regardless of whether their practice was particularly close communion, or a more generally "restricted" communion, this is no longer the doctrine or practice of the Christian Reformed Church; and I know that the other denominations listed also abandoned such a position (particularly before being received into open communion denominations). Does anyone know when such a change might have occurred?

 

[JOwen]

JOwen
Historically, both terms are correct. "Close" permits baptized, confessing members of other congregations and even federations who have a like confession to come to the table, providing that have either a letter of attestation from their consistory/kirk session and/or have met with the ruling body of the communion they wish to attend to ask permission to the table. The Free Reformed Churches of North America hold to such a position. It is in our Church Order. This means that people who are visiting from another federation (URC, OPC, NRC, HRC, Free Church Continuing, etc.) may be granted access to the table while they sojourn amongst us. Close here refers to theological consanguinity.

Jerrold,

A few questions about how this might work in practice if you are free to answer:

1) Does the meeting with the ruling body often occur right before a corporate worship service?
2) How might a visitor know of this policy in advance of corporate worship?
3) Is this process explained during corporate worship (e.g. "If you are a member in good standing of an evangelical church and have met with our session,")
4) Any idea where the line might be drawn on a denomination membership? I'm assuming one must be a believer, in good standing of a "true church" denomination.
(e.g. If you clearly had a believer in say a New Wineskin coalition church of the PCUSA, would they be considered? Would PCA, ARP type communions ordinarily be sufficient? How about EPC?)

Dear brother,

1) Does the meeting with the ruling body often occur right before a corporate worship service?

Usually yes, although some have been able to meet us at our monthly consistory meeting.

2) How might a visitor know of this policy in advance of corporate worship?

Depends. We publish our intention to have communion two weeks in advance in the bulletin, so that is one avenue. Most times the guest is a friend or relative of a member, or has made contact with myself or another member as to our times and location. At this time, if Holy Supper is going to be observed, they are informed of it. If they come in off the street (so to speak) without any prior knowledge of communion, they are welcomed by our usher, and told where consistory meets before the service, should they want to attend.

3) Is this process explained during corporate worship (e.g. "If you are a member in good standing of an evangelical church and have met with our session,")

Every time.

Any idea where the line might be drawn on a denomination membership? I'm assuming one must be a believer, in good standing of a "true church" denomination.

The visitor is asked a series of questions pertaining to their personal faith in Christ, their current membership, as well as their doctrinal soundness. If they are able to answer all the questions put to them, they sign a letter of attestation to this effect, and we mail this to their kirk session or consistory. If they belong to an Arminian, or liberal Church (denial of the core doctrines of the faith, female office bearers, homosexuals ect), or cannot agree with infant baptism, they are not granted access to the table.

Hope this helps.

 

[JM]

The church I attend practices strict communion.

Andrew Fuller on those who object, “..the real objection against us respects us not as strict nor as open communionists, but as Baptists. In other words, that the only open communion that would give satisfaction must include an acknowledgment of the validity of paedobaptism, which, for any Baptist to make, would be ceasing to be a Baptist.

The Philadelphia Baptist Association, “In answer to a query from one of our churches: What measure ought to be taken with a sister church who holds and actually admits unbaptized persons to the Lord’s supper? we observe, That such a church may and ought, in the first instance, to be written to by a sister church, exhorting them to desist from such a practice, and to keep the ordinances as they were delivered to them in the word of God.”

John Dagg wrote,

“When a church receives an unbaptized person, something more is done than merely to tolerate his error. There are two parties concerned. The acts of entering the church and partaking of its communion are his, and for them he is responsible. The church also acts when it admits him to membership, and authorizes his participation of the communion. The church, as an organized body, with power to receive and exclude members according to rules which Christ has laid down, is responsible for the exercise of this power. Each individual disciple of Christ is bound, for himself, to obey perfectly the will of his Master. Whatever tolerance he may exercise towards the errors of others, he should tolerate none in himself. Though he may see but a single fault in his brother, he ought, while imitating all that brother’s excellencies, carefully to avoid this fault. He may not neglect the tithing of mint, though he should find an example of such neglect accompanied with a perfect obedience of every moral precept.”

“The members of a church, who understand the law of Christ, are bound to observe it strictly, whatever may be the ignorance and errors of others. For them to admit unbaptized persons to membership, is to subvert a known law of Christ. Though there be unbaptized persons surpassing in every spiritual excellence, and though the candidate for admission excel them all, yet the single question for the church is, shall its order be established according to the will of God, or shall it not.”

“We are aware that the practice of strict communion is considered offensive by a large part of the Christian community. We lament this fact; and if the arguments which have been adduced in defence of our practice, have failed to produce a conviction of its propriety, we would still crave from our brethren the forbearance and toleration for which they plead in behalf of the weak in faith. We conscientiously believe that we are doing the Lord’s will; and we would gladly invite every child of God to unite in our simple ceremonial observance, if we had the divine approbation. But we believe that the purpose for which the observance was instituted, and the divine will by which it ought to be regulated, require the restrictions under which we act.”

“When Pedobaptists complain of our strict communion, we would remind them that they hold the principle in common with us, and practice on it in their own way. If they have aught to object, let it be at that in which we differ from them, and not at that in which we agree. The contrary course is not likely to produce unity of opinion, or to promote that harmony of Christian feeling which ought to subsist among the followers of our Lord. When Baptists object to strict communion, we would propose the inquiry, Whether they do not attach undue importance to the eucharist, in comparison with baptism. Mr. Hall calls the eucharist a principal spiritual function. In this view of it, he complains that the privilege of partaking in it should be denied to any. Is it more spiritual than baptism? If not, why should baptism be trodden under foot, to open the way of access to the eucharist? When both ceremonies were supposed to possess a saving efficacy, the proper order of their observance was still maintained; much more should it be maintained, if both are mere ceremonies. If baptism were a mere ceremony, and the eucharist a principal spiritual function, the arguments for open communion would have a force which they do not now possess: but our brethren will not defend this position.”

“And the open communion Baptist, who, in his own case, preserves the divine succession of first discipleship, and then baptism, when he joins or presides over a mixed communion church, destroys what he has thus built up, and makes himself a transgressor … It is the strict Baptist alone that follows the precepts of the Lord of the house … .” J. C. Philpot

Does the ARP practice closed communion? I was asked to take part when visiting an ARP church by someone who knew I was a Baptist.

jm

 

[Kaalvenist]

Anyone?