Landmark Baptist

Church ordinance or Christian ordinance? Please give scripture.

It has been awhile since I've been on this discussion board but this caught my attention. Are you asking if the communion of the body of Christ is "open", "close" or "closed"?
Open meaning: Open to all of those who profess Christ as their savior.
Close meaning: Open to all those that are members in good standing with a church of "like faith" i.e...Landmark Baptist.
Closed meaning: Restricted to only those that are members at that particular church body.

I hold to the Closed position.

1 Corinthians 11:18-34

Steve Waters

Bro. Waters, I concern...
Most of those which have a problem with "closed communion" also have a problem with identifing the church as a local visble body. It's those who reach for a "larger than local" [whatever that is] and a universal body who see the open communion philosophy. As for "close": that's absurd. It's just a fancy excuse for "open"

Amen! Wshank, you have it right!

Wshank wrote:Bro. Waters, I concern...

I hope y'all get a good chuckle outta my misspellings.... I do...
That should have said: "I concur"

I am seeking to discuss Open, Close, or Restricted (Closed). I have been in discussions recently on this matter so it is at the front of my brain

For the record, I believe in the Local Church therefore, I believe in a Restricted (CLOSED) observance of the Lord's Supper.

Desertpracher 77:

I am not sure what you are asking for in a further discussion of the common methods practised in communion by the "Christian world" when you agree that the Lord's Supper is closed to the local church. The interpretation of the Bible largely leans heavily on context. There is no scripture that openly says "Only the members of a local church may scripturally take the Lord's Supper." Neither is there a verse of scripture that states "Only a local New Testament Church may administer baptism on a professed believer." Yet both are true because it is heavily emphasized in context and there is no other context to the contrary. Both are church ordinances. We do not participate in the baptisms of others, or invite others to participate in our baptisms, so why would anyone take authority on themselves to make the Lord's Supper anything but closed? The arguments of "close" and "open" communion are proponents of universal church whether the proponents recognize it or not. Now, I am not saying that you are, but I am only laying out the reasoning involved in these perversions of the Lord's Supper. Anyone who does not discern the Lord's body (church) eats and drinks damnation to himself in participating unworthily, I Cor. 11. With whom did Jesus institute the Supper? Who is the "Ye" in "as oft as ye do this do it in remembrance of me?" When these questions are rightfully answered, all questions are removed.

W. A. Dillard wrote:Desertpracher 77:

The arguments of "close" and "open" communion are proponents of universal church whether the proponents recognize it or not. Now, I am not saying that you are, but I am only laying out the reasoning involved in these perversions of the Lord's Supper. Anyone who does not discern the Lord's body (church) eats and drinks damnation to himself in participating unworthily, I Cor. 11. With whom did Jesus institute the Supper? Who is the "Ye" in "as oft as ye do this do it in remembrance of me?" When these questions are rightfully answered, all questions are removed.

I totally agree that those who practice an open communion are inclined to believe a universal church.

I was just looking for some discussion on the matter. I had engaged an individual who left an ABA church in September because he disagrees with a local church/ closed communion.

desertpreacher77 wrote: " I was just looking for some discussion on the matter. I had engaged an individual who left an ABA church in September because he disagrees with a local church/ closed communion."

I understand. Sometimes it is good to brush up on the arguments for and against a topic, especially in readiness to discuss that topic with someone who disagrees. I personally believe there is no stronger evidence of closed communion than the context in which the subject appears in the scriptures. Those who take another position must deny that context and in so doing, deny the Bible presentation of it. Many years ago late 1950's or early 60's the Missionary Baptist Seminary produced a book entitled "Credenda" in which major points of the faith were set forth. The Lord's Supper was one of them. Perhaps that book is still available at the bookstore in Texarkana. It would be helpful.

I think I have that book "Credenda" somewhere in my library. I will have to look for it and look through it. I appreciate the discussion like this.

This speaks to a larger subject we have discussed numerous times in different threads - when Jesus, as quoted by Paul in 1Cor.11:25, said "This cup is the new testament in my blood..." if He was speaking of His blood and how it is connected to the new testament (covenant) as being applicable to salvation of a lost sinner only, then all saved should be able to take of the cup.
But, if His blood and how it is connected to the new testament (covenant) includes a life of faith after salvation, which must properly include service to Christ through His authorized ekklesia, then the cup is restricted to such a people.

From this, we then proceed to restricting the Lord’s Supper to those the local church has any kind of authority over, meaning only members of that local church.
“For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread” 1Cor.10:17.
This kind of unity can only exist in the setting of a local body of Christ where discipline and oversight can take place.

As a slight aside, do any of you brethren connect the unleavened bread to the Feast of Unleavened Bread that took place immediately after the Passover? If the Lord's Supper speaks of the fellowship we have with Him and each other through His forgiveness and the "blood of the new covenant" then the cup alone would be sufficient. What is the spiritual significance of including the unleavened bread, unless we apply it to picturing the sinless life of Jesus, so that in His life and death both we have provision? We claim the benefits from God come through the blood of His Son - what specific or additional reason is there to include the unleavened bread?

I don't agree that the word "body" in this passage refers to the church: 1 Corinthians 11:29 "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body." The "body" in this passage is the same one he referred to here, (1 Corinthians 11:24) "And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." The body that was nailed to Calvary's tree was not the church institution. I also don't agree with this thinking:

Rick Howard wrote:if He was speaking of His blood and how it is connected to the new testament (covenant) as being applicable to salvation of a lost sinner only, then all saved should be able to take of the cup. But, if His blood and how it is connected to the new testament (covenant) includes a life of faith after salvation, which must properly include service to Christ through His authorized ekklesia, then the cup is restricted to such a people.

Jesus Christ Himself said (Matthew 26:28) "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." The fact is that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin. This is rightly commemorated in the Lord's Supper, and it does not at all lead to open communion. As Dr. Dillard pointed out, both baptism and the Lord's Supper are committed to the assembled church. 1 Corinthians 11 says, "when ye come together" (vs. 20 and 33). If we believe in church authority, then we also believe that every church has the authority and/or discipline over her own table.

Rich