Does God want us to withhold Lords Supper from non members of our denomination?

[sunlover1]

Did God ever say to keep some from receiving communion?

 

[Albion]

He did not say, one way or the other. But when Jesus instituted the Lords Supper, he addressed all of his comments about it, about its meaning, about observing it in the future, and so on, to his closest disciples. It was a private meeting, we might say.

From the time of the early church forward, then, the policy was to consider this to be a very sacred, intimate, ceremony that was meant for believers, not others--not even people who were interested in the church or studying to become Christian. Such people had to leave the building at the point in the service when preparing the bread and wine for Communion began.

Today, the rules are much relaxed (depending upon ones denomination), but there is good reason to think that the sacrament is not meant for just anyone who comes forward.

 

[Dave G.]

Jesus said " as often as you do this do it in remembrance of Me" . He didn't say who would be doing it going forward but we know those who were there were believers. If we are to do it in remembrance of Him I'd think we would have to believe in him. Most churches I have attended require that one be a believer. Except the Catholics, who make it a big time sin if you haven't gone through all the steps that they require of you..

 

[HypnoToad]

Did God ever say to keep some from receiving communion?

Not directly, but it can be argued that it is implied in something Paul wrote. (But I wouldn't say it means doing so by denomination.)

"For the one who eats and drinks without careful regard for the body eats and drinks judgment against himself." - 1 Corinthians 11:29

In the church I was raised in, they had a policy about this. If the pastor didn't know you, and you did not speak to him beforehand, if you just walked up for communion, he would not give it to you. The way they saw it, the pastor is responsible for the spiritual well being of the people in his church. They figured they didn't want to take the chance of letting someone take communion in judgment against themselves.

I'm not saying they were right or wrong to do that, but that is the scriptural basis of denying communion. So the question you need to figure out is - how much responsibility does the church/pastor actually have in safeguarding people in this regard? Does denying the Lord's Supper in such a way go beyond that responsibility?

 

[Dave G.]

Not directly, but it can be argued that it is implied in something Paul wrote. (But I wouldn't say it means doing so by denomination.)

"For the one who eats and drinks without careful regard for the body eats and drinks judgment against himself." - 1 Corinthians 11:29

In the church I was raised in, they had a policy about this. If the pastor didn't know you, and you did not speak to him beforehand, if you just walked up for communion, he would not give it to you. The way they saw it, the pastor is responsible for the spiritual well being of the people in his church. They figured they didn't want to take the chance of letting someone take communion in judgment against themselves.

I'm not saying they were right or wrong to do that, but that is the scriptural basis of denying communion. So the question you need to figure out is - how much responsibility does the church/pastor actually have in safeguarding people in this regard? Does denying the Lord's Supper in such a way go beyond that responsibility?

Ultimately we are responsible for ourselves, the pastor will not be standing beside us when we are face to face with the Lord on judgement day. Nor we with him at his judgement.

 

[HypnoToad]

Ultimately we are responsible for ourselves, the pastor will not be standing beside us when we are face to face with the Lord on judgement day. Nor we with him at his judgement.

Sure, but *if* you are responsible to protect someone and then knowingly do not protect them, would that not earn some guilt? Would we be calling Jesus the good shepherd if He said, "well, shepherding is really more of a casual thing. It's not like I always need to be paying attention." ?

 

[Dave G.]

Sure, but *if* you are responsible to protect someone and then knowingly do not protect them, would that not earn some guilt? Would we be calling Jesus the good shepherd if He said, "well, shepherding is really more of a casual thing. It's not like I always need to be paying attention." ?

That's why I said "ultimately" and referenced the pastor having his judgement day alone too. The pastor has a responsibility for sure. In our church it's done by simple announcement . Something to effect of if you are a born again believer in Jesus Christ come partake. Or all believers are invited to celebrate etc.

 

[Albion]

Ultimately we are responsible for ourselves, the pastor will not be standing beside us when we are face to face with the Lord on judgement day. Nor we with him at his judgement.

Perhaps, but it is the church that is administering, consecrating, and distributing the Lords Supper--and the pastor is its agent. It is not as though the church has nothing to say about who is given the sacrament and must instead adopt a hands-off policy with everyone who might choose to commune if the decision were left up to them.

 

[Dave G.]

Perhaps, but it is the church that is administering, consecrating, and distributing the Lords Supper--and the pastor is its agent. It is not as though the church has nothing to say about who is given the sacrament and must instead adopt a hands-off policy with everyone who might choose to commune if the decision were left up to them.

Albion I think I posted message #7 same time you posted #8.

 

[HypnoToad]

That's why I said "ultimately" and referenced the pastor having his judgement day alone too. The pastor has a responsibility for sure. In our church it's done by simple announcement . Something to effect of if you are a born again believer in Jesus Christ come partake. Or all believers are invited to celebrate etc.

"The pastor has a responsibility for sure" - And that's exactly my point.

What you have to ask now is - Does nothing more than an announcement really cover that responsibility, especially since we know people's propensity for being less than honest? I.E., just because someone hears that announcement doesn't mean they're actually going to follow the guidelines.

 

[sunlover1]

He did not say, one way or the other. But when Jesus instituted the Lords Supper, he addressed all of his comments about it, about its meaning, about observing it in the future, and so on, to his closest disciples. It was a private meeting, we might say.

From the time of the early church forward, then, the policy was to consider this to be a very sacred, intimate, ceremony that was meant for believers, not others--not even people who were interested in the church or studying to become Christian. Such people had to leave the building at the point in the service when preparing the bread and wine for Communion began.

Today, the rules are much relaxed (depending upon ones denomination), but there is good reason to think that the sacrament is not meant for just anyone who comes forward.

Thank you for your thoughts.
This is one way to look at it.
I do want to say that "the early church" isn't a perfect standard.
IMO.
Not familiar with Anglican thought, so I don't know where your church
stands on that, but that's my personal opinion, nothing more.

As a member of the body of Christ and someone who has attended
church services, I know very well that not every man in that building
is saved and living for God.
The thing is, we CANT know another mans heart.

So imo, it's enough to give the caveat from Scripture.

Even that, many churches are teaching that we have to
be perfect in order to partake, and that if we have sin,
we bring destruction to ourselves.

So many rules, when God just wants all who thirst and hunger
to come to Him.
So much shutting up the doors of heaven from those we deem
not worthy (non members of our denoms) when God's desire
is to dwell/tabernacle with man.

Again, that's my take.

*shrug

 

[Dave G.]

"The pastor has a responsibility for sure" - And that's exactly my point.

What you have to ask now is - Does nothing more than an announcement really cover that responsibility, especially since we know people's propensity for being less than honest? I.E., just because someone hears that announcement doesn't mean they're actually going to follow the guidelines.

The pastor covered himself with his statement in my view. We don't know the case at hand of course, there may be a case where a pastor is sure the person is not a believer.. That becomes a whole different situation.

 

[sunlover1]

"The pastor has a responsibility for sure" - And that's exactly my point.

What you have to ask now is - Does nothing more than an announcement really cover that responsibility, especially since we know people's propensity for being less than honest? I.E., just because someone hears that announcement doesn't mean they're actually going to follow the guidelines.

Not only that, how do we know that guy in the front row, who's there every sunday,
maybe the choir director etc.. is worthy or not?
We can't.

ONLY God can know.
So why would we waste our energy
policing the Lords Supper in such a
way?

I'm against limiting communion to members.

 

[Dave G.]

Thank you for your thoughts.
This is one way to look at it.
I do want to say that "the early church" isn't a perfect standard.
IMO.
Not familiar with Anglican thought, so I don't know where your church
stands on that, but that's my personal opinion, nothing more.

As a member of the body of Christ and someone who has attended
church services, I know very well that not every man in that building
is saved and living for God.
The thing is, we CANT know another mans heart.

So imo, it's enough to give the caveat from Scripture.

Even that, many churches are teaching that we have to
be perfect in order to partake, and that if we have sin,
we bring destruction to ourselves.

So many rules, when God just wants all who thirst and hunger
to come to Him.
So much shutting up the doors of heaven from those we deem
not worthy (non members of our denoms) when God's desire
is to dwell/tabernacle with man.

Again, that's my take.

*shrug

I don't care how well you confess up to date you're always going to have sin as long as we are in these fleshly bodies. It might just be a passing thought of judgment on someones hair as you walk down the isle, there is no sinless man walking earth today but through the blood.

 

[sunlover1]

Perhaps, but it is the church that is administering, consecrating, and distributing the Lords Supper--and the pastor is its agent. It is not as though the church has nothing to say about who is given the sacrament and must instead adopt a hands-off policy with everyone who might choose to commune if the decision were left up to them.

It's not "the church" as in a denomination, that's administering when I partake.
I take communion "often" as Jesus said.
And that means I often enjoy communion with God
the Father and the Spirit of God and Jesus the Son
of God, right in my home.
Such a blessing.
Do you think that God likes or objects ?
Can we know?
Is it written?
If not, is there a way to know?
(Rhetorical questions for all of us to consider)

 

[sunlover1]

Perhaps, but it is the church that is administering, consecrating, and distributing the Lords Supper--and the pastor is its agent. It is not as though the church has nothing to say about who is given the sacrament and must instead adopt a hands-off policy with everyone who might choose to commune if the decision were left up to them.

If i were a pastor, and if a non Christian wanted to join in the Lords' supperod w, I
would wonder why, then I would pray that God would lead me in the next move.
I wouldn't just offer the body of Christ, willy nilly.
It's holy and blessed and it's about our covenant with Him.
What benefit to someone not in covenant?
And what possible harm, if He's not "discerned" the Lord's body!

 

[Albion]

Thank you for your thoughts.
This is one way to look at it.
I do want to say that "the early church" isn't a perfect standard.
IMO.

Maybe not, but it appears that the policies of the early church in this matter are a reflection of Christs intentions.

We can judge for ourselves by reviewing what the Last Supper was all about, what Christ said there about the sacrament/ordinance that he was instituting on that occasion, and to whom he was speaking and committing the responsibility of continuing the observance after his departure from Earth.

Even that, many churches are teaching that we have to
be perfect in order to partake, and that if we have sin,
we bring destruction to ourselves.

I don't know what churches those might be. They cannot represent a very large percentage of the Christian churches we have. The Catholic church in theory requires that communicants be free of unforgiven mortal sin, but that is not the same as requiring perfection.

 

[Albion]

It's not "the church" as in a denomination, that's administering when I partake.

Unless you commune yourself, yes it is. It is the church that is making the bread, etc. available according to all the scenarios that have been under discussion on this thread. If the worshippers were to bring their own, I suppose the issue would be a lot different.

I take communion "often" as Jesus said.
And that means I often enjoy communion with God
the Father and the Spirit of God and Jesus the Son
of God, right in my home.

You are speaking now of something entirely different from the sacrament/ordinance we have been focused on, right?

 

[HypnoToad]

Not only that, how do we know that guy in the front row, who's there every sunday,
maybe the choir director etc.. is worthy or not?
We can't.

ONLY God can know.
So why would we waste our energy
policing the Lords Supper in such a
way?

I'm against limiting communion to members.

You DID ask, "did God ever say...?"

All I'm doing is pointing out where the argument for withholding the Lord's Supper comes from, and that it is, in fact, based on Scripture. Again, I'm not claiming what view is right or wrong.

You're all free to read that Scripture and apply it how you think you should be read & applied - just as others are free to read & apply it differently than how you feel.

 

[sunlover1]

Maybe not, but it appears that the policies of the early church in this matter are a reflection of Christs intentions.

We can judge for ourselves by reviewing what the Last Supper was all about, what Christ said there about the sacrament/ordinance that he was instituting on that occasion, and to whom he was speaking and committing the responsibility of continuing the observance after his departure from Earth.

I can't see how this helps us to decide to withhold communion from other Christians,
just because they aren't card carrying members though.
That's what my thread is all about.
I believe that when we deny someone just because they don't meet up to
OUR standards, we are treading on thin ice.

What if it's WE who aren't "discerning the Lords Body"?
What if we stand there like that publican, thinking
we should withhold from Mr Baptist over there..
when all along, He meant just the opposite of what
we "thought" He meant.
*Shrug.

I don't know what churches those might be. They cannot represent a very large percentage of the Christian churches we have. The Catholic church in theory requires that communicants be free of unforgiven mortal sin, but that is not the same as requiring perfection.

I used the term loosly.
I'm lazy, sorry
And in a hurry.
Son's Wedding weekend.

I will revisit this later, sorry.