What is “open” or “closed” communion — and why does it matter?
- 91 views
The idea that baptism is a prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper is based on a series of inferences and is not stated anywhere in Scripture. On the other hand, Jesus made it quite clear the Supper was for members of the New Covenant in Christ’s blood. Please prove me wrong without employing some variation of …
- Acts teaches people are baptized and added to local churches
- This means the folks in Corinth had been added to their church and baptized
- The folks in Corinth are taking the Lord’s Supper
- This means the only people in their church who take the Lord’s Supper are baptized
- That means everyone who takes the Lord’s Supper has to be a baptized member of a local church
or
- If you allow professing and repentant believers to take the Supper who aren’t baptized, the world will end, chaos will reign, and darkness will cover the earth (that’s a paraphrase of Kiffin and Strong’s views)
- Baptism comes before the Lord’s Supper
- How can you partake of the ordinance that signifies renewal in Christ if you haven’t partake of the one that’s the initiatory rite into the local fellowship
Because, these are all inferences. I don’t recall any baptismal prerequisites at the inauguration of the Lord’s Supper. I do recall that it’s an ordinance for members of the New Covenant (unless you’re a dispensationalist who believes the NC is strictly future, in which case … I can’t help you!), and 1 Corinthians says it must be done reverently and repentantly. It says nothing about baptism.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I have also heard “An unbaptized Christian is a disobedient one so how could we give them the Lord’s Table.” That argument might hold after a sustained refusal to be baptized but a new believer should be welcome to partake while they await their baptism.
For many years in independent Baptist churches I dutifully practiced closed communion as I was taught. As Tyler pointed out, the requirement of baptism before observing the Lord’s Table is an inference. There is a certain logic to it – baptism portraying entrance in the visible community of faith and communion portraying the ongoing fellowship and dependence.
However, I now hold to open communion in that anyone can come forward to take the elements. We don’t police the Table. We don’t simply pass the plates. People come forward. The elder leading the ordinance emphasizes the necessity of the new birth and invites all believers to examine themselves before leaving their seat. If there are new believers who have not yet been baptized, I see no scriptural reason to deny them the Table. If there are believing visitors from outside the church they are invited to join us regardless of how or if they have been baptized. We do ask that parents “police” their children because we do not practice paedo-communion.
We observe the Lord’s Table weekly. It follows the message and recitation of the Apostles’ Creed. It is also an invitation for those who are not saved to understand their need of a Savior and trust him even at that moment. Were they to do so they would be welcome to the Table. We also hold that the Table is a “remembrance” of what Christ has done and that there is spiritual benefit in the observing. In other words Christians receive something at the Table in the way of spiritual nourishment communicated in the faithful observance.There is real “participation” in the body and blood of Christ (I Cor. 10:16).
Tyler,
I find your response here curious. You recently shared an article on church membership which was entirely based on inferences from scripture yet you demand this question be answered without appealing to inference. Maybe you can explain why this is different.
Paul
Very good question.
It’s different because the Scripture doesn’t imply you have to be baptized to partake of the Lord’s Supper. Instead, it explicitly states it’s for people who are members of the New Covenant who are repentant.
My point in my initial post was to ask whether anyone had an argument that wasn’t an inference from 1 Cor 11, or some variation of a slippery-slope doomsday argument. I suspect they don’t. Kiffin didn’t have one. Strong didn’t have one.
However, when I administer the Lord’s Supper, I challenge folks to consider whether they’re truly pleasing the Lord if they (1) know they ought to be baptized, (2) and they decide to say, essentially, “bite me,” or (3) they know what the Bible teaches about church membership, and (4) they’re content to not formally commit themselves to a local congregation.
I won’t say something like, “if you’re not baptized, you can’t partake.” I won’t do that, because I don’t believe it. Instead, I use the Lord’s Supper as an occasion to strongly urge people to make a commitment for baptism and membership. I’m guessing (but, of course, I’m not sure), I emphasize baptism and membership more than most Baptist pastors. I also think baptism, membership and the Supper are treated rather flippantly in many local churches across the land.
Functionally, my position is virtually indistinguishable from what most Baptists do, who believe in close communion. Theologically, however, there is a clear nuance. I just baptized a new Christian yesterday. I asked her 11 questions which, essentially, formed a church covenant as she stood in the water and waited to be baptized (listen to the first four minutes here). It was a solemn and moving way to do it, and it had an impact on the congregation. We’re observing the Lord’s Supper next week!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Funny, cause what you’re describing in your post sounds like you know the NT implies baptism is necessary for participation in the Lord’s supper.
I think baptism is important. But, I don’t think it’s necessary for the Lord’s Supper. I merely use it as a convenient time to encourage folks to become baptized, if they are not. You should be baptized, but it isn’t a requirement for the Lord’s Supper.
Do you have an argument for why it is necessary? I’m well aware many Baptists would disagree with me, but I posted my thoughts anyway. What is your own response, beyond one sentence comments (smile)?
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I’m comfortable with the clear implication of baptism and church membership as prerequisites for the Lord’s supper, just as I’m comfortable with the implication of church membership itself in the NT.
I do SI on my phone which usually causes me to limit the length of my responses, btw. B-)
Instead, it explicitly states it’s for people who are members of the New Covenant who are repentant.
On what NT basis do we say that being a “member of the New Covenant who is repentant” is the only requirement?
In the NT, how are “members of the New Covenant” identified? How is repentance expressed in salvation? It seems to me that there is no NT evidence of one being a “member of the New Covenant” other than baptism. Is it an inference? Perhaps, but it seems a pretty solid one. The idea that inferences are bad theological method is suspect, at the very least.
Where in the NT is anyone taking communion without being baptized? It’s a small sample size to be sure, but there are no indications of unbaptized people being considered believers is there?
You;ve briefly presented a solid case for an inference. I appreciate it. Inferences are not necessarily bad. But, they’re clearly less reliable than didactic, explicit teaching or the necessary implications of that teaching. That’s not too controversial of a statement, is it?
You’re objectively “identified” as a member of the New Covenant by regeneration and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. You should, ideally, externally show this objective reality by (1) living a holy life with the motivation to please God, and (2) by joining a local congregation, and (3) by following the Lord in believer’s baptism. But, the Lord’s Supper isn’t about baptism. It’s about the New Covenant. If folks who followed close communion wanted to be consistent, they’d do the following:
- Only baptized, repentant Christian can partake
- The baptism must only be by immersion
- The Christian must also be a church member
Basically, the only consistent way to implement a conviction that the Supper is for Christians who are obedient to join a church and undergo believer’s baptism is to adopt CLOSED communion. This makes the Supper more about membership and baptism than the Supper, and seems at odds with Jesus said the point of the ordinance is. This is my primary objection. This is why I use the Supper as an occasion to strongly urge people to consider membership and baptism, but I don’t announce them as prerequisites.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I’m going to try the Reader’s Digest Condensed Version of my story:
My husband and I experienced some extremely unpleasant things in a church where we’d been deeply involved members for many years. My husband has yet to heal his wounds or overcome his doubts or whatever. It’s been about 6 years, and we have yet to join a church. As a matter of fact, he seldom attends, so I go alone. I’ve chosen up to this point not to join a church without him, so I’ve been excluded from the Lord’s Supper lo these many years.
It’s super awesome to sit in church and weep because I’m not allowed to participate, even though in every way that matters to God, I’m in obedience. To put a really fine point on it, I think any One-Size-Fits-All solution when it comes to issues like this (with no clear commands) is beyond insipid, short-sighted, and insensitive.
Here are some other faces: The new believer who is in a church in Maine with no baptistry, in the winter with lakes frozen, and other churches won’t let you borrow their baptistry because its only for their members. Or the new believer who is a terminal cancer patient and can’t be immersed. Or the 200 pound plus quadriplegic……and on and on. One-Size-Fits-All doesn’t fit.
Add to this that when it comes to fencing the table, few churches make their fencing a memorable statement and very few, if any, physically fence the table. Let’s face it, how many of us have actually forbidden to serve someone?
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[TylerR]Inferences are not necessarily bad. But, they’re clearly less reliable than didactic, explicit teaching or the necessary implications of that teaching. That’s not too controversial of a statement, is it?
Not at all controversial as I see it. This is key to much of applying scripture. Implication is done by the speaker (or, in this case, the text). Inference is done by the listener/reader. In the case of reading the Bible, this is someone making a biblical application for himself. That’s perfectly legitimate (and pastors certainly preach many of their inferences from studying the Word), but it has much less weight than textual implication or outright clear teaching/statement/command.
Dave Barnhart
[Ron Bean]Add to this that when it comes to fencing the table, few churches make their fencing a memorable statement and very few, if any, physically fence the table. Let’s face it, how many of us have actually forbidden to serve someone?
While “physical fencing” may be uncommon, it’s definitely done. While forbidding to serve someone is not something I’ve seen, I’ve attended a church where for the Lord’s Supper, the audience was dismissed, with members asked to stay, at which point the Lord’s Supper was celebrated.
Dave Barnhart
1 Cor 11:28 NAU But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
That is why I am for open communion. It isn’t a church responsibility.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Discussion