closed communion
communion with restrictions: not closed communion, not close communion, not open communion—but biblical communion .
those who hold to close communion are opposed to both open and closed communion .
anabaptists have through history practiced “closed communion” or “close communion”. in “closed communion”, only members of that specific church will partake in communion together. “close communion” allows those of “like - minded faith” to also partake with the congregation .
although i personally favor closed communion, my church is not. i would say it practices close communion .
there are serious omissions from this article on the orthodox view of closed communion .
those who hold to close communion are opposed to both open and closed communion. these are “middle ground” christians .
the communion is closed to only being partook of by real christians... .
dr. moore’s first reason for a closed communion position is both unpersuasive and insulting .
and the american baptist association (predominant among baptists in arkansas) also practices closed communion .
closed communion is superior to open communion because it more effectively helps to protect and nurture the sanctity and industry of the church .
it’s not about bureaucracy; it’s about god’s word. closed communion is the teaching of repentance .
i do not think closed communion is wrong, but neither do i think close is incorrect .
the purpose of the communion tokens, which were used primarily throughout the 19th century, was dependent on the practice of closed communion .
for further study of the terms “closed” and “close” see norman nagel’s closed communion: in the way of the gospel; in the way of the law. concordia journal / january 1991 and paul mccain’s communion fellowship .
closed communion is nothing more than the acknowledgement of what god’s word says, namely that not everyone should commune .
< / font > [ / quote ] in west virginia, the american baptist churches - usa predominately practice open communion. there are a few that practice closed. most ifb' s in west virginia are closed communion .
that' s interesting, considering that there is a least one baptist church in greenville that practices closed communion .
the writer contends that closed communion is not merely a practice dictated by a certain theological view of the church. on the contrary: a church which practices closed communion as the beginning of its theological thinking for church management, and diligently follows all naturally occurring corollaries of the full doctrine of closed communion, will soon discover that a closed communion table favourably governs correct practices in all areas of church life, and will preserve the existence of the local church .
from a careful examination of the scriptures, it is evident that closed communion most closely adheres to the biblical pattern .
closed communion is a crucial practice for the church to follow because the gospel is at stake. this is why .
there are basically three policies of observing communion – open, close, and closed. open communion allows anyone to participate without distinction or qualification. close communion restricts the supper to those within the denomination or fellowship of a church based on specified standards of agreement. closed communion restricts participation to only the members of each local assembly .
the policy of a
closed communion
is nothing new; in fact it goes back to the earliest christians. the
closed communion an issue? seriously? i can easily understand, and support closed communion. reasonable people wouldn’t want to bring down a lightning strike upon any church. consider what happened to st. peter’s basilica on the night pope benedict resigned .
• from a careful examination of the scriptures, it is evident that closed communion most closely adheres to the biblical pattern .
the point here is that the expression “closed communion” is not an adequate or faithful description of the ecclesiology that undergirds the traditional practice of communion. for in reality there is no such thing as “open” or “closed” communion – there is either communion or there is not. in other words, either there exists a communion of faith expressed in a common understanding of doctrine and worship, sacramental and spiritual practice, or such communion does not exist .
[ 2 ] communion: a family affair: why the orthodox church practices closed communion, a. james bernstein, conciliar press, 1999, p. 2 - 3 .
world communion tokens - scotish communion tokens - lot of 5. communion tokens 1843 - 1855 scottish (nice grade). 5 pcs .
– to disobey the scriptures is a sin. the only way a church can be reasonably sure it is obeying the word of god in regard to communion is to practice closed communion .
• to disobey the scriptures is a sin. the only way a church can be reasonably sure it is obeying the word of god in regards to communion is to practice closed communion .
because the communion supper is a command, there are rules for doing it correctly, because if it is not done correctly, some or all of the four - fold purpose will be not be properly achieved. the correct way of conducting the communion supper is at a closed table. this is known as ‘closed communion’ .
who is worthy? - a reflection on closed communion in lutheran churches | j. w. wartick -
always have a reason
i agree. in my opinion there are only two viable choices. open and closed .
especially in america today, the word “closed” carries negative connotations. one of the worst accusations possible is that of “ closed - mindedness. ” a politically correct culture will not tolerate anyone or anything that is closed, for to be so is de facto “bigoted” and “intolerant” .
this is the logic behind a closed communion. it is not an arbitrary or spiteful policy, but a necessary one for a divided christendom .
experience indicates that churches allowing open or close communion will not have the same level of spiritual zeal, holiness, and concern for the truth as those churches practicing closed communion. closed communion is an imperfect indicator of a church that has more than the mere form of godliness without any authority, for they are protecting the integrity of the lord' s table by their restrictive communion policy .
dr. bob, can you expand on these, especially the differences between close and closed .
most bma churches practice closed communion. my personal conviction tends to lean toward open communion. what i would like to see is some' clear' scriptural evidence for closed communion. the standard answer i have recieved from most is
that is just the way we do it
, which falls way short of a valid answer to me .
my “tradition” was always close communion. i left the tradition and went with closed because i was convicted by bible study that my tradition was wrong .
the older churches, such as the roman catholic and the eastern orthodox exclude non - members from communion under normal circumstances. many conservative protestant communities also practice closed communion, including some conservative lutheran churches. the mennonites and the landmark baptist churches also practice closed communion, as a symbol of exclusive membership and loyalty to the distinctive doctrines of their fellowship .
therefore closed communion – referring to the long - standing tradition of communing only those who are members of a unified body – is becoming an ecclesial “sin. ” ironically, most of us would admit that a healthy society is built upon “closed” marriage .
i would appreciate it greatly if someone could show me how i am wrong on acts 20. i have no desire to abandon my closed communion position. however, at this time i do not know how to reconcile acts 20 with closed communion without straining this chapter in lukeâ€™s second volume to theophilus .
one of the reasons why closed communion is seen in such a negative light today, is because our world doesn’t like to hear the word “no. ”
now that i realize my conclusions on various passages in the book of acts were probably wrong, i becoming more swayed by the idea of closed communion .
the crux of the issue of open or closed communion is whether or not the lord' s supper should be made available to people outside of a local church' s membership. the bible teaches that communion should only be taken by believers in jesus christ, but it stops short of instructing on how this relates to church membership. some churches only allow their own members to take communion (closed communion). other churches allow any believer to take communion, regardless of church affiliation (open communion). sometimes, this latter position is referred to as
close
communion, with the idea that
open
communion would be letting anyone take communion, saved or unsaved .
the problem many have closed communion is not the issue stated above. all would agree with this. this is a good first step. in fact, without knowing it, pastors who do this are actually, halfway, practicing closed communion. they have closed the lord’s supper to the impenitent. this is good, but incomplete. what most people take issue with is telling members of other denominations that cannot commune .
update: the above historical reasons for a closed communion table were written before i became orthodox. click here for a more recent post explaining the theological reasons .
my problem with closed communion is that there is some fear factor of polluting the assembly, and or some outside the faith might bring rebuke to the assembly .
perhaps it would be good to have those supporting closed communion to give scripture support for their view, just as the op did in support of that view .
my problem with closed communion is that there is some fear factor of polluting the assembly, and or some outside the faith might bring rebuke to the assembly. perhaps it would be good to have those supporting closed communion to give scripture support for their view, just as the op did in support of that view .
[ 1 ] closed communion may also refer to simply keeping communion closed to those who affirm what the book of concord teaches regarding the lord’s supper. there is a fine line between this practice and making the additions to the book of concord’s teaching as noted in this post. i am not addressing this less stringent variety here .
rule of faith and practice within the lord’s church. in the case of closed communion, this is our foundational basis and sole point of reasoning. we feel doctrinally constrained by new testament scripture to observe the lord’s supper and communion in this way. it is my purpose in this article to present scriptural evidence as the basis for our commonly questioned and heavily criticized practice of closed communion .
closed communion is not unique to the lutheran church missouri synod. it continues to be practiced by most of the world’s christians who are roman catholic and orthodox. at one time nearly all christian denominations in america practiced closed communion. this included almost all lutheran churches. now only the lutheran church missouri synod and a few small lutheran bodies continue this confessional practice. the expressions “closed” and “close” are often used interchangeably. the term “closed or close communion, ” means that only baptized and instructed christians, who are in complete agreement concerning the teachings of holy scripture, and confession of faith, commune with one another .
i have been lutheran all my life, but have never agreed with a closed communion. before one objects, neither do i believe that communion should necessarily be open to all. i am much more of the mindset that “close” communion is in line with what we see in 1 corinthians .
if by any chance your church practices denominational communion, as opposed to closed communion for members only, it is not the purpose of this article to find fault with your church. rather, we desire to show a better way .
these articles are about the historically, and more importantly, scripturally authentic church practice known as closed communion. the practice is also known as ‘restricted communion’, and it is from the word ‘restricted’ that ‘strict baptist’ churches take their title .
in both close and closed communion, we give the bread and wine to only those who believe the same and dress the same as we do. closed communion requires that you believe the same as i –on pretty much everything. close communion is a little less rigid. basically, it says you must be mennonite. (and for conservative groups, that includes only mennonites that wear a head covering. )
the reasons for the practice of close communion are often misunderstood by christians who have been accustomed to an “open communion” policy. in a tract entitled “why close communion? ” the rationale for the practice of close communion is explained in this way :
those who characterize the traditional practice as “closed communion” may forget that a church’s communion of faith, and by extension its sacrament, is actually open to all who formally embrace it and unite themselves to it. this is certainly true of the orthodox church. it is “closed” only in the way a marriage or a family is closed. while love and hospitality is extended, there are reasonable limits to that hospitality, without which there is no real marriage or family .
closed communion has been practiced in the church since its foundation. it began in the early church, continued through the reformation, and has been passed onto us. it reflects a deep understanding of god’s rich and abundant grace given to sinners in christ’s body and blood. it also magnifies for us the richness of our relationship to each other in christ. the practice of closed communion is a confessional practice. in a day where anything goes, closed communion and the confession it represents, gives lutherans solid ground to stand on .
for a detailed examination of the practice of the early church regarding closed communion, see werner elert, eucharist and church fellowship in the first four centuries, trans. norman e. nagel (st. louis: concordia, 1966). elert shows conclusively that the church from the very beginning practiced closed communion, and confirms the universality of the practice .
i have been in both kind of churches and respect their view to keep it closed if they see thatbaptist board .
the exceptions listed above are just that: exceptions to a general rule. closed communion is still the norm, the church only relaxes the restrictions in extreme circumstances out of charity .
those churches which exclude certain people (usually non - members) from receiving communion are said to have a
closed communion
. in contrast, those which allow non - members to communicate are said to have an
open commmunion
.
the argument for closed communion is based on a desire to ensure that only believers partake in communion. since church members are already on record as having professed faith in jesus, the restriction helps prevent an unsaved person from participating in the ordinance .
withholding communion from someone who refuses to get baptized makes sense. withholding communion from someone who doesn’t dress like us does not .
closed – only members of that particular church are admitted to communion. the catholic church theoretically operates on a closed basis: doctrinally, only catholics are supposed to receive the elements, though in practice i have often been invited to join at mass, even though the priest knew i was not catholic .
my understanding (though often flawed) is that communion is for born again believers only. some churches have closed communion (only for their members), which i believe is wrong. god will know who the true believers are and won' t be fooled by pretenders who partake of communion
unworthily .
by
closed communion
we refer to the policy in which only members of a particular local church are allowed to partake of the lord' s supper when celebrated in that church .
some may see this as a good argument against what you have written, but there is no way i would ever have become a lutheran if not for the practice of closed communion .
as far as the red herring, saying that churches connect because christ is their head is a great truth. what does it have to do with whether communion is closed or close ?
table fellowship in the lord’s supper has become one of the most debated issues in the church today. the decision to practice open or closed communion segments many congregations. christians of good will and conscious on both sides of the issue want to do what they feel is right. they want to do the christian thing. most of the time decisions of open or closed communion are made from an emotional standpoint. on the one hand there are people who want to open the communion table up to everyone because this would be the “loving thing to do”. on the other hand there are people who want to practice closed communion because that is the way lutherans have always done it. with little more than this for a foundation the argument for closed communion crumbles in a heap. it would seem to be better to open holy communion up to all in love. this, however, is the point. it is not more loving to practice open communion .
question: where is denominationalism found in the bible? if it can be found in the bible, then close communion is the correct way, and both open and closed communions are wrong .
term, define it, and stick with it. so, for the duration of this article, when i refer to closed communion, you now know exactly what i am referring to .
question: where is denominationalism found in the bible'? if it can be found in the bible then close communion is the correct way, and both open and closed communions are wrong .
closed communion—it couldn’t possibly sound more negative. it implies judgement, exclusivity, and moral superiority—all qualities that a pluralistic, democratic and egalitarian society despises. and yet, without a doubt, the orthodox church is a closed communion: only those who are baptized members of the eastern orthodox church, who offer a regular confession and who fast and pray in preparation, may receive the eucharist .
this is a short version of why the lord' s super is
closed
and not
close or open .
i agree. in my opinion there are only two viable choices. open and closed .
close
is a misnomer .
because of obvious administrative complications, a closed communion table can be managed best in numerically small church memberships, but, in much larger churches, only with difficulty, or perhaps not at all .
first, i feel it necessary to express a quick word pertaining to terminology. when it comes to how primitive baptists observe the lord’s supper and communion, some people refer to it as “closed” communion and some people refer to it as “close” communion. this is merely an issue of semantics and preference. so, for the purposes of
according to the historic christian teaching reflected in the early church fathers, admittance to holy communion means embracing the entire faith tradition of the body. before holy communion can be received, communion must already be achieved .
with the absence of any other reason for close communion, we should follow the clear teaching; interpret the less plain in light of the plain. we should practice closed communion. we should exclude the lord’s table from everyone except those in the membership of our own church .
the catholic church teaches that catholics should only receive communion from other catholic churches, and non - catholics should not receive communion in catholic churches .
gradually, as the church of scotland moved away from closed communion and the practice of fencing the table church interiors changed to reflect this, and fenced communion tables were removed. in fact, despite having visited countless church of scotland churches over the years, i had never seen a fenced communion table, and i simply assumed they no longer existed .
the scriptures teach closed communion, certainly. but it seems like where we draw the line on who is “worthy” or not is pretty much based on our understanding of scripture - which universally is not uniform .
orthodox christians, who all follow the ancient tradition of ‘closed’ communion, find this latest development quite puzzling. the late metropolitan paulos mar gregorios of the malankara syrian orthodox church expressed the orthodox understanding of the issue :
i realize that those who are persuaded of the “closed” position feel very passionate about this. i have known a few who are anxious to dis - fellowship all who are not “closed”. but i’m trying to demonstrate here that we who are persuaded of the “close” position also have reasons, which we feel are legitimate. and we have some objections to the “closed” position, that at least we ourselves feel are relevant .
the “synod” does not practice open communion. the synod is not church. lcms has affirmed the practice of closed communion as well. sadly, pastors and congregations have not been faithful to scripture, the lutheran confessions, nor the lcms agreement in doctrine when practicing open communion. a faithful lcms affiliated congregation / pastor will mark and avoid erring layman / pastors at the communion rail and also refuse to commune them while seeking to gain their repentance and once again confess the unity of faith properly at the communion rail .
bro. mcgovern, am i to understand that you do not recognize the importance of biblical examples. there is no clear evidence for close communion, whereas the biblical example is always closed communion. i truly have not heard anyone that is close communion give any scriptural proof or biblical examples without stretching scripture. i do not vote in your church and you don’t in mine. a member has communion at their local church and do not need to be involved with another churches communion. it is a big issue .
franz pieper, christliche dogmatik three vols. (st. louis: concordia publishing house, 1920) iii: 444 :
auch die apostolische kirche praktizierte nicht' open', sondern' closed communion' .
i can only speak of the baptist church, having been in that church since my youth. some baptist churches have' open' communion and some have' closed' communion. open communion invites all who are baptized believers to participate. closed communion invites only those who are members of that local church body to participate. now a note: the word' invite' is tacit in most churches and it is left to the individual to decide his / her own conscience. i have never seen anyone denied the rite of communion. usually the preferred practice will be spelled out in the individual church' s covenant for anyone who cares to ask for clarification .
the auction has finished, bidding is closed. if you won any items an email will be sent to you with invoice & payment information .
i have received my first communion by accidentally taking communion but then having a bishop tell me it was okay to consider it a first commun ...
the lutheran church generally also participates in closed communion, requesting that all participants in communion administered from a lutheran church be baptized members of a lutheran church. there are numerous synods within the lutheran church, and some of them may even require that participants be members of that specific synod of lutheran churches .
it was not until the beginning of the 20 th century that open communion became anything more than highly unusual. anglicans and episcopalians, lutherans, baptists, reformed presbyterians, and methodists all practiced closed communion at least until that time. [ 2 ] that means for close to 1, 900 years the sharing of communion between christians of differing faith was quite exceptional. [ 3 ]
there exists full and formal communion among all the 23 churches of the catholic communion, the largest of which is the roman catholic church. so for example any roman (latin) catholic can receive communion in a melkite church, and any melkite catholic can receive communion in an armenian catholic church or a maronite church, and a maronite can receive communion in a roman (latin) church .
the problem is not simply that roman catholics practice ‘closed’ communion, whilst protestants all follow a policy of ‘open’ communion, as there are several protestant churches (such as the brethren and some lutheran churches) who have a very strict ‘closed’ discipline, whilst rome herself opens her altars to orthodox, assyrians christians and members of the polish national catholic church. in recent years participants at large ecumenical gatherings have found themselves offered ‘eucharistic hospitality’ at catholic altars, a form of once - off gesture to those not normally permitted to receive communion .
while canvassing the community for my church, i met a couple who were not interested in us because they believe in closed communion. this was even though they were not going to any church because they couldn’t find one suitable .
answers to the questions concerning communion practices, including the practice of closed communion, must be given in accordance with the scriptures as expounded in the lutheran confessions. therefore, it is necessary to lay the groundwork for the discussion by noting the basic principles of interpretation by which the lutheran church operates, so that these principles can then be put to use in answering questions concerning communion practices .
why can’t lutherans take catholic communion? | russell e. saltzman | first things
the true body and blood of jesus christ truly given in communion? check .
we thank you for respecting our communion practice and the scriptures which teach us .
writing, and in order to be consistent and avoid confusion, i will now define what i mean by “closed communion” and that will be the term and definition in which i will use throughout this article. this is meant solely for the clarity of this article only and is not an effort to standardize primitive baptist terminology. for this article, i choose the term “closed communion” and define it to mean the following: primitive baptists maintain that only believers baptized into a primitive baptist church may partake in the ordinance of the church known as the lord’s supper and / or communion. in other words, only those baptized believers of like faith and order may participate together in this church ordinance. another reason i personally prefer the term “closed” over “close” is that later in this article we will contrast the two different ideas of open communion versus closed communion. obviously, it logically makes more sense to contrast the opposites “closed” and “open” rather than the opposites “close” and “far” (or “distant”). again, this may seem like a silly distinction to some, but for the purposes of this article and to be clear, it is expedient that we chose
the practice of closed communion gives the lutheran church the opportunity to witness to the world. from this practice, as questions arise, we can communicate to our friends and neighbors the richness of god’s grace on the issues of the lord’s supper, alter and table fellowship, christian unity and inclusiveness, and the meaning of a common confession of faith. the purpose of this paper is to gain a better understanding of the practice of closed communion as a foundational tool for catechesis. the questions to be considered are: what are its scriptural roots? how was it practiced in the history of the church? what do our confessions say? finally what makes the contemporary practice of closed communion difficult ?
all of this is to convey that the practice of “closed” communion is not personal or vindictive. christians of other confessions are not excluded from holy communion based on a judgment of their personal faith, sincerity, or sanctity. rather they hold to a different christian tradition and are united to a different christian body .
5. church discipline can override communion privileges. however, that is a disciplinary issue, made in consequence to specific actions that need correction. closed and close communion deny participation rights of some believers even when there have been no disciplinary actions taken. this is not the biblical standard as presented in these verses .
some of those who would abandon closed communion see it as a custom which served the church well in the past, but which has outlived its usefulness. they suggest that in a pluralistic culture such as ours the practice causes offense and thus distracts from the good news the church is called to proclaim. it becomes necessary, then, to examine the nature of the practice of closed communion to determine if it is a man - made custom which may be abandoned in view of current circumstances, or if in fact it is a practice which is derived from the very nature of the lord' s supper. in other words: is closed communion a man - made option or a divinely instituted necessity ?
one of my biggest struggles on my journey into orthodoxy was the closed communion table. it seemed quite unfair that someone else could deem who was worthy to take communion, and who was not. infants and children in the church could partake of it, but i as a christian and inquirer into orthodoxy could not .
lot 327 features a canada east beauharnios communion token from the church of scotland. from the bob merchant communion token collection, only three examples are known to exist .
world communion tokens - new zealand communion tokens, port chalmers, b. 5713; tapanui; waihola; warepa; wellington, b. 7142. 5 pcs .
the question of open or closed communion is one that each individual church must decide. however, scripture reveals the lord' s supper can be and most likely should be left open for all believers who are in right standing with christ .
by communing with somebody from outside of our own communion, not only do we reinforce a sinful fellowship, we deliberately have communion with what we understand as error. i like to use the term communion and not use the term fellowship at all. if we are in communion with somebody who is in another communion with satanic arts, then we too, have deliberately entered into communion with those satanic arts. “insistence that people be missouri synod” is both too narrow a protocol and too wide a protocol. it is too narrow because the missouri synod is in communion with many other lutheran synods around the world. and then there are synods that ride the fuzzy line like the lutheran church of australia. it is too wide because within the missouri synod, there are a great many who deliberately and persistently violate their own pledges to confessional practices on communion. closed communion is beautiful. iron sharpens iron. when our brothers and sisters of other christian communions also practice closed communion, we are able to sharpen each other and learn from each other. when we blindly blend, neither stands for anything or communicates anything. neither offers the other anything .
although i personally favor closed communion, my church is not. i would say it practices close communion. my view is closely tied to church discipline. for example, we could disfellowship someone for flagrant sin, yet under open communion could not deny him participation in the lord' s supper. that' s a pretty extreme example, and not likely to happen, but you can see the implications .
communion is more than just a personal or individual act between god and the communicant .
). this verse clearly reveals the importance of taking communion in the proper spirit .
originally posted by bender99: in my opinion communion should be opened to all believers .
at a solemn tridentine mass, the host is displayed to the people before communion .
“the more doctrines you believe the less people you will have communion fellowship with. ”
may the lord bless your administration of holy communion and may it be a true communion in the body and blood of christ by the work of the spirit through faith .
this view is from the balcony, and shows the communion table between the pews .
and 12, both of which talk about the universal body of christ is 1 corinthians chapter 11. there is no scriptural basis to claim that the corinthian church practiced closed communion as a basis for discounting the message of this chapter. the context of chapters 10 and 12 requires otherwise. this chapter explains how to conduct communion .
historically, christians share communion (the sacrament) with those they are in communion (the state of unity) with. now the difference between how the various traditions — catholic, orthodox, anglican and protestant — understand communion (unity) impacts how they practice
holy communion has never been free. the eucharist, and real communion, comes with the price of monogamy, of standing for and within a tangible faith community and tradition .
great question. it’s not a lack of charity at all; it is a biblical mandate. that’s the bottom line: what does scripture say about who should receive communion, and what that act signifies (in the corporate sense)? several christian groups have closed communion: not just catholics (missouri synod lutherans come to mind) .
i feel like it is appropriate, as one who, at this time, still holds to closed communion (and thus hopes that i am wrong on acts 20), to mention that some of us who are closed make arguments that are quite poor on acts 20. i have read literature arguing for closed communion that says that there is no scriptural evidence that there was a church at troas, and also argues that there is no evidence from church history for a church in that city for centuries. unless i am in the dark about something (which is very possible), both of these contentions seem extremely poor to me. (by the way, sometimes kjv - only churches that are closed reproduce arguments for closed communion that are based on corruptions in the critical text, such as â€œweâ€ for â€œthe disciplesâ€ in acts 20: 7â€”it is easier to say that there is no church in troas if one believes the nasv rather than the preserved word of godâ€”anyway, here are my reasons for thinking there was a church in troas, and for the fact that church history supports this) :
this is my quick answer: if the ordinance is for the local church then that would mean that each local church partakes of this ordinance privately, meaning closed. at our church, we do not call it
closed
but
covenant
communion. only those who have made the
covenant
to be faithful to christ and his
local
church are able to partake of the lord' s supper .
anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of reconciliation before coming to communion .
all that is to say that depending on which lcms church one visits, where one is located, etc. , all play a factor in whether one would see lutherans practicing closed communion or not. incidentally, i’ve never heard the gospel preached in a lutheran church that practices open communion. not sure if there is a correlation there or not .
although the media usually seems to criticize the catholic church for having a closed communion, this is not entirely fair since she is not the only christian church with such a policy. the eastern orthodox also have a closed communion; they only permit orthodox christians to receive in their churches and forbid their own members from communicating in any other church (even a catholic one !). some protestant churches have similar rules, only allowing those who accept jesus as their savior to participate in their
lord' s supper
.
it should be clear from the above that, according to martin luther’s own criteria for shared communion, modern day evangelicals would be prohibited from receiving communion in the catholic and orthodox communions .
world communion tokens - new zealand communion tokens, east taieri, 1864; invercarcill. b. 3357 (2); kaihiku, b. 5441 (2). 5 pcs .
closed communion means not everyone who worships at praise lutheran receives the bread and wine, christ’s body and blood, during the lord’s supper. not, that is, until they’ve been faithfully instructed and confirmed in the very same faith that is taught here. god desires us all to have the same mind concerning his teaching (1 cor. 1) before receiving his gifts at the table (1 cor. 10 - 11). closed communion is a reflection of our unity in doctrine and common confession and witness before the world .
the lutheran church teaches that after the blessing by the pastor, the bread and wine also become the body and blood of jesus. it' s both body and bread, wine and blood, at the same time. this is why lutherans also practice closed communion .
too often, closed communion is spoken of as the end of a long process undertaken by an individual and not part of the process undertaken by god. this shifts the focus away from the purpose and efficacy of the sacrament and toward the personal faith of the recipient .
let me try and explain one assertion in the post is that if one practices close communion he is â€œredefiningâ€ the church. if this point were true, i believe there would be a clear verse (s) teaching against close communion. why? because of the importance of the local church. (i in no way believe in a â€œuniversal church. â€ i in no way think that closed communion in any way suggest a belief in universal church. )
it is unlikely and improbable that those who observe open or close communion will obey this command .
– there is no proof in the new testament that paul ever observed communion with any church .
lcms frequently asked questions doctrinal issues - the lord’s supper / holy communion (accessible here) .
• there is no proof in the new testament that paul ever observed communion with any church .
“i’m for vestments, weekly communion, crucifixes, elevation and everything associated with traditional lutheranism. ”
world communion tokens - new zealand communion tokens, west taieri, b. 7165 (2); whangarie (2); launcestown, b. 4155 (australia). 5 pcs .
the church i grew up in was primitive baptist old school and our communion was closed and only opened to those who were of our same faith and order... these other churches were know as sister churches and as tc stated they were of our church family... our communion was open only to our church family, even the lords supper and feet washing... there are other who have stated for open and some for close and others for closed... each body of believers have their own way of how they conduct communion in their churches, i told you mine... whenever and by what mode we take communion we must keep in mind one thing, the reason for it... brother glen
anyone who desires to receive christ in eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance .
1) the uoc - kyiv patriarchate has been vigorously seeking inter - communion with as many other “non - canonical” orthodox churches as possible. at present, it is in communion with the following :
the relevance for today' s churches remains. in all instances, communion should be taken only by believers who have examined themselves before the lord. if a person has not made a profession of faith or is unwilling to take communion in a worthy manner, he or she should refrain from taking part in the lord' s supper. if a believer is visiting a church which practices closed communion, it is best to refrain from partaking, so as not to give offense .
so we have two options. open, allowing people we don' t know determine who we unite with, or closed, limiting participation to our own, known, church family .
here, i’d like to examine this practice of some lutheran churches, often referred to as “closed communion. ” [ 1 ] what do the actual lutheran confessions say about who may receive the lord’s supper? that is the question which must be asked by any claiming to be lutheran .
a true seeker of bible truth and practice, need to earnestly seek to understand the practice of this closed communion. when we hold to the restrictions placed upon the lord’s supper by our master, we are defending the “faith which was once delivered to the saints” (jude 3) .
in the end, closed communion is not merely the unpleasant practice of an exclusive church. it is a challenge for all of us to ask 1) who is jesus? and 2) what is communion? i invite you to take these questions forward in your thoughts. may they goad you to a richer encounter with the crucified and risen christ and his living body on earth .
at the communion rail one is saying “i believe the same thing as is taught at this altar .
exceptions to this may be made under special circumstances. if you are a member of another communion of believers, please remain seated during holy communion unless you have spoken with the pastor before the service .
i am doing some historical research on my denomination' s (general association of general baptists) position on open communion. i am interested in knowing if any other group represented here affirms open communion .
russian true orthodox church – metropolia of moscow (in communion with and originating from the uao) .
communion tokens of the united states of america
by autence a. bason, greensboro, nc
if you happened to be in attendance when we held the lord' s supper, then you were gently told it is our conviction from the word of god to observe closed communion. that is, we believe the lord' s supper is limited to the membership of each local church .
as a baptist, i believe in the priesthood of the believer. closed communion denies the priesthood of the believer, it denies the protocol god established in this chapter, and it denies the oneness of all believers with all believers in christ and christ in all believers, as jesus taught in
in today' s earlier post i introduced the concepts of closed, close, and open communion and fencing the table. i realized that i never explicitly explained how we fence the table at redeemer and thought it would be a good idea to explain that in a follow - up post .
close
is a misnomer. if a door is
almost closed
it is still open. it can be open a little or open a lot but it is still open .
i have believed in closed communion for years, and i would still say that i believe in it. however, i donâ€™t have a good answer on acts 20. i started studying that passage out for the purpose of dealing with seventh day adventists, and in the course of my study, my way to explain the passage in a closed communion consistent method was shaken. i think it was the lordâ€™s supper in acts 20, and this is why (from my study; i hope the greek / hebrew fonts turn out okâ€”and i have changed footnotes to things in brackets) :
closed communion in a divided christendom is a modest restatement of the historic position of our church body, as this was formulated by dr. c. f. w. walther in his essay on communion fellowship delivered to the missouri synod' s western district convention in 1870. (15) readers of this essay will note that the commission has expressed itself much more mildly than did dr. walther .
if you, like me, have struggled with the idea of having a closed communion table, then i would say that firstly you are not alone. i have no desire to make someone feel guilty for thinking that way nor am i condemning those who have a very open practice in their church .
to come to communion is to confess openly before everyone the true christian unity we enjoy under god’s word .
– if this cannot be proven then open and close communion cannot be proven as a new testament practice .
communion is a package deal. it does not happen without reference to the tangible life of the community. it is not an isolated moment where i “take” communion on my own terms, without reference to the community, its corporate faith and life, its tradition. such a communion never existed in the historical church .
• if this cannot be proven then open or close communion cannot he proven as a new testament practice .
comprehensive directory of world communion tokens
by 0. d. creswell nadin - davis numismatics, 1985
bell said among the top highlights of this spring’s auction is material from the bob merchant communion token collection .
world communion tokens - new zealand communion tokens, longbush, b. 4442; oamaru, b. 5355; north taieri, b. (2); north dunedin, b. 5312. 5 pcs .
world communion tokens - new zealand communion tokens, north dunedin, b. 5312; otago, b. 5259, stock (2); otepopo, 1864; port chalmers, b. 5713. 5 pcs
no you should not take communion. the catholic and orthodox churches have closed communion as such - it would be a sin for you a protestant to receive communion at an orthodox or catholic church as the chalice is reserved for those who are members and have been to confession, fasted and prayed and to approach the cup is to claim that about yourself. like wise i as an orthodox christian cannot take communion at a catholic or protestant church. whether or not a protestant christian can take communion at an other protestant church would depend - on the teaching of their church and the one they are attending. if you read 1 corinthians 11: 29 you will see treating communion with out respect is a sin - for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the lord' s body.
closed communion is the practice of restricting the serving of the elements of holy communion ( also called eucharist , the lord 's supper ) to those who are members in good standing of a particular church , denomination , sect , or congregation . though the meaning of the term varies slightly in different christian theological traditions , it generally means that a church or denomination limits participation either to members of their own church , members of their own denomination , or members of some specific class ( e.g. , baptized members of evangelical churches ) . see also intercommunion . a closed-communion church is one that ( perhaps with exceptions in unusual circumstances ) excludes non-members from receiving communion . this is the practice of all churches dating from before the protestant reformation and also of some protestant church such as some lutherans and baptists . non elca lutherans in the us require catechetical instruction for all people , even members from other lutheran churches , before receiving the eucharist while some baptist churches require part membership while others even require full membership before participating in the communion service . churches which practice open communion allow all christians to partake in the lord 's supper , with membership in a particular christian community not required to receive bread and wine , in contrast to pre-reformation churches , which hold that what is received in their celebrations ceases to be bread and wine . 
closed communion is the practice of restricting the serving of the elements of holy communion (also called eucharist, the lord's supper) to those who are members in good standing of a particular church, denomination, sect, or congregation. though the meaning of the term varies slightly in different christian theological traditions, it generally means that a church or denomination limits participation either to members of their own church, members of their own denomination, or members of some specific class (e.g., baptized members of evangelical churches). see also intercommunion. a closed-communion church is one that (perhaps with exceptions in unusual circumstances) excludes non-members from receiving communion. this is the practice of all churches dating from before the protestant reformation and also of some protestant church such as some lutherans and baptists. non elca lutherans in the us require catechetical instruction for all people, even members from other lutheran churches, before receiving the eucharist while some baptist churches require part membership while others even require full membership before participating in the communion service. churches which practice open communion allow all christians to partake in the lord's supper, with membership in a particular christian community not required to receive bread and wine, in contrast to pre-reformation churches, which hold that what is received in their celebrations ceases to be bread and wine.
closed communion is the practice of restricting the serving of the elements of holy communion (also called eucharist, the lord's supper) to those who are members in good standing of a particular church, denomination, sect, or congregation. though the meaning of the term varies slightly in different christian theological traditions, it generally means that a church or denomination limits participation either to members of their own church, members of their own denomination, or members of some specific class (e.g., baptized members of evangelical churches). see also intercommunion. a closed-communion church is one that (perhaps with exceptions in unusual circumstances) excludes non-members from receiving communion. this is the practice of all churches dating from before the protestant reformation and also of some protestant church such as some lutherans and baptists. non elca lutherans in the us require catechetical instruction for all people, even members from other lutheran churches, before receiving the eucharist while some baptist churches require part membership while others even require full membership before participating in the communion service. churches which practice open communion allow all christians to partake in the lord's supper, with membership in a particular christian community not required to receive bread and wine, in contrast to pre-reformation churches, which hold that what is received in their celebrations ceases to be bread and wine.