Replies

>>Actually, i think there is a good case for closed communion<<
I believe one would be hard pressed to show evidence from scripture of the apostles teaching that it is the ekklesia who restricts someone from taking communion. It's always the personal responsibility of the individual as far as I can tell. It's the individual assemblies who allow or disallow fellowship so that would be the only example of "closed communion".

This would make a good discussion for a Protestant/Evangelical caucus thread. I've been on both sides of the issue. In the early days, when I was attending a Dutch Reformed fellowship (no I am not Dutch), they were insistent on tight control over participation in the Lord's Supper. The argument was that God would hold the leadership responsible for permitting unworthy participation, and given that Paul says illness and death can result, it only follows that strong oversight is necessary to the well-being of any who might participate.

But as you say, CB, when the time came to defend the practice using Scripture, there were only general principles and inferences. No explicit prohibition. And no accounting for the situation where you might have a visitor from an out-of-denomination fellowship who is no doubt worthy spiritually but not on paper. In my later years I concluded, and still hold, that while leadership does have a responsibility to protect the flock from itself to some degree, that does not extend into areas where they do not have Scripturally designated jurisdiction. 1 Corinthians 11:28 defines the jurisdiction for this explicitly, "let a man examine himself." This is between the individual and God. No prohibition on bringing leaders in for advice, as in "Pastor X, I need to reconcile with someone before I do this, can you help me do that?" But come the moment of decision, it is up to the individual. The leadership cannot be judged for honoring proper jurisdiction. Likewise, I believe parents of younger children have jurisdiction to help them decide when they are ready.

But I respect the concern that drives the other position. Honoring the Lord above all is paramount among His children, even when we have slight differences of opinion on how best to do that.

Peace,

SR

I would suggest that in a true New Testament assembly of the ekklesia of Christ this conversation would be unnecessary. Paul taught that if one of the assembly saw someone who was sinning they should bring it up personally with that person. I he didn't listen to that person several should go together. If that person didn't listen even to them it should be brought to the local assembly and then if he didn't listen they would not allow that person to meet with them at all. In that scenario those who vote for abortion for instance would no longer be allowed to participate with that assembly and partake.

The current organization of "churches" allows too many to shirk the personal responsibilities thinking it's the "higher ups" that have that responsibility. The "churches" today are in a sad state of affairs.