Referring to Ligon Duncan (a Presbyterian) or Michael Green (an Anglican) you wrote: “They are brothers in Christ and we will all eat together in that Supper of Suppers depicted in Revelation 19. I will not deny them in this age what the Lord will not deny them in the next.”

Your logic here fails you. These two brothers will be in the general assembly (ekklesia, church) in heaven. Why not allow them to join your local church (ekklesia, assembly) here on earth? Why deny them in this age, what the Lord will not deny them in the next?

You see the Bible not only restricts the membership of New Testament churches to properly baptized believers, but it also restricts the Lord’s Supper to properly baptized believers. Both are true. Both stand together. Both fall together.

You also seem to doubt my claim that the liberal takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention is what lead many Southern Baptist churches to adopt open communion. Yet this claim is true. Study your Baptist history. In the 1800’s there were no Southern Baptists defending open communion. None. The first Southern Baptists to teach open communion were liberal professors in our seminaries. Men such as W.O. Carver, Dale Moody and the twelve professors fired by Duke McCall at Southern Seminary in the 1950’s.

You claim that open communion is “clearly commanded in the Bible.” Where? I have not read a single scripture verse from you that teaches open communion. Where is this clearly commanded?

On the other hand, Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 2:41-42, 1 Corinthians 5:11, 1 Cor. 11:17-20, 1 Cor. 12:25, etc. all teach a restricted Lord’s Supper. Let us as Southern Baptists stand for the teaching of God’s Word of this subject.

++++++++++++++

“Question: Why ought Baptists not to take the Lord’s Supper with believers of other denominations?
Answer: Because we think they have not been baptized, or are not walking orderly as to church connection.”

- From John A. Broadus’ “A Catechism of Bible Teaching” (1892)

Kirby, I think you have this right, and you’ve put succinctly what I am in part trying to say.

To our friend from the Middle East, thank you for reminding us of something too often overlooked – the connection of the Supper to the Seder, and it’s place in the life of Israel. Surely, since the Supper is the sign of the New Covenant, there is much to learn along these lines.

We’ve had differing viewpoints regarding the post, and I appreciate all of them. A friend and I were talking through this today and in the end, this is a fairly simple decision for me. If Ligon Duncan (a Presbyterian) or Michael Green (an Anglican) is sitting with me in worship this Sunday, I think it is right to share the Table with them. They are brothers in Christ and we will all eat together in that Supper of Suppers depicted in Revelation 19. I will not deny them in this age what the Lord will not deny them in the next.

These statements were in your article and the comments.

Open communion
Closed communion
Holy communion
Take communion
Invited to the Lord’s table
The table

Are any of these statements found in scripture?

When you hear words that are not in the Bible
don’t you wonder why we use them?
and where they came from?

Isn’t it challenge enough understanding the truth of the words that are written?
How much harder word’s and phrases we invent?

Doesn’t Jesus warn us about the dangers of
“The Traditions of Men” that make the Word of God of non effect?
Mark 7:14

The question asked was…
“The word communion; What does it mean in the Bible?
Not from a religious standpoint, or a religious tradition,
or a religious sacrement, or a religious ritual,
but what does the Bible have to say about communion?”

Don’t most folks just go along with what is taught
from the pulpit and from the seminary, “The Traditions of Men?”

Don’t most just assume “The Lord’s Supper” and “Communion” are the same.

How many have gone to the scriptures asking;
What does the word “communion” refer to in the Bible?

And, If not a bone of “His body” was broken?
Why did Jesus take the bread and break it?
and say take and eat “This is My body?”

Out of heaven he made thee to “hear his voice,”
that he might instruct thee.
Deuteronomy 4:36

It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God.
John 6:45

To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world,
that I should bear witness unto the truth.
Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
John 18:37

Open communion for all confessing Christians is the only way we can be both graceful and obedient in this matter.

I wholeheartedly agree. It is amazing how signing the gospel in majority non-Christian environments brings into sharp relief certain aspects of our theological positions. I live in the Middle East (as you know) and Table fellowship is one of the primary ways we sign our unity in the body of Christ and his coming Kingdom. Participation in it is a blessing that should leave no professed believer in Jesus as Messiah and Lord outside looking in. We would all do well to remember the roots of the Lord’s Supper in the Passover Seder. It was inclusive of all Israel–of all those who were in covenant with God. No one was to be left outside for this meant they were outside God’s covenant. It is therefore easy to see how this inclusion in the body of Christ extends to all professed followers of Christ.

Scott

James, thank you for reminding us of what the BFM says.

Kirby, I share the same concern you do. It isn’t that I don’t believe the church should practice discipline. I have long advocated the recovery of that ministry. But I fear where some seem to want to go with this, and fear we will lost the gospel for another version of moralism.

Les, thank you for your kind words. If Rick’s comment at the first is correct, then you and Rick and I may be in trouble. By the way, I hope you’re doing well these days.

Jay has reminded us of an important interpretive issue that we must consider when we grapple with these matters. Jay, I really don’t mind anyone questioning my logic. If I’ve erred, I want it to be exposed. In this case, I remain unconvinced by Ben.

Ben, I doubt anyone was suggesting that the Supper be open to unbelievers. There is another point there, but you appear to be predisposed against hearing it.

I gather, given your comments about Paul, that you would welcome a visiting missionary to take the Supper with your congregation. I commend you for that. How would you distinguish between allowing them to come to the Table and, say, the visiting family of believers (who are not missionaries or church planters) who happen to be in your locale on a given Lord’s Day?

As for unity, you say “True unity is based on doctrinal truth.” Much hinges then on what you mean by “doctrinal truth.” And certainly local congregations will have to make determinations about this, and should. But I hear you saying (and correct me if I’m wrong), that anyone who is not in your congregation cannot be judged by you to hold to “doctrinal truth” to such a degree that you consider them to have unity with you. If you could ascertain this, would you then invite them to the Table? My difficulty with your view is that you effectively now have no doctrine of the church, but rather have a doctrine of the churches. It would be impossible on your view to pursue the unity of the church, I suppose.

My point about the texts you cited remains. You think they demonstrate far more than they actually do.

As for your point about the Supper and church votes, the first is clearly commanded in the Bible, while the latter is one form of exercising church polity, but it is not commanded in the Scriptures. So I’m not so eager to even make the comparison one way or the other. To say it’s all about (local) church “membership” is, again, an instance of question begging on your part. Since you’ve disallowed us to be illogical I can’t allow you to do that.

I read your article. Well, what can I say? Very many Southern Baptists in the convention’s early years, and into the 20th Century opposed open communion. You say the reason that changed is the “liberalizing” of the convention. Whatever that means. Would you even consider other possible explanations? I wonder, for example, if some determined that whatever closed communion got right, it got more wrong, and therefore modified their practice. I doubt, of course, that every church did what they did for purely theological reasons. Church practices don’t usually hinge simply on theology (even if we wished they would more than they do). But we may want to give the good people of the SBC a bit more credit than that, don’t you think? And attributing something to “liberalism” is so easy but very often so off point.

Thanks to everyone for the engaging discussion.

The word communion; What does it mean in the Bible?
Not from a religious standpoint, or a religious tradition,
or a religious sacrement, or a religious ritual,
but what does the Bible have to say about communion?

And have you ever noticed this,
In 1st Cor it says, Jesus said,
“this is my body which is broken for you.”

But, not a bone of His body was broken
in order to fulfill prophecy.

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.
1Co 11:24

He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.
Ps 34:20

For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled,
A bone of him shall not be broken.
John 19:36

If not a bone of “His body” was broken?

What did Jesus mean when He said,
This is my body which is broken for you?

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice;
and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
John 10:16

One Fold – One Shepherd – One Voice.
If Not Now, When?

In His Service. By His Grace.

The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.”