What's your View? How do you vote?

[Kellylaine]

I believe in open communion, that all who are Christians at my church, and who are visiting are allowed to partake of the Lord's supper with us. Athough, my uncles Church, believes in closed communion, where only Christian members of his church are allowed to partake. What are your views ?

 

[Kellylaine]

I strongly agree to open communion

 

[AJ]

I strongly agree with open communion for all Christians.

 

[arunma]

I fully agree with open communion (this is what my church practices), but I can see some valid reasons why some churches might have closed communion. The Bible strongly warns us about receiving the eucharist unworthily, so open communion is a somewhat dangerous thing. But it goes without saying that if a church is going to close their communion meal, they ought to do so out of love for unbelievers, rather than out of arrogance (in which case it would be sinful).

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Ditto.

I fully agree with open communion (this is what my church practices), but I can see some valid reasons why some churches might have closed communion. The Bible strongly warns us about receiving the eucharist unworthily, so open communion is a somewhat dangerous thing. But it goes without saying that if a church is going to close their communion meal, they ought to do so out of love for unbelievers, rather than out of arrogance (in which case it would be sinful).

 

[MrsHarper]

I believe strongly in open Communion - as long as all those partaking in The Lord's Supper are Christians, I don't see why there would be a big stink.

 

[Easystreet]

We have open at my church - but my feeling is it should be close. The communion service should be after a service not within a service.

 

[mlqurgw]

I hold to open communion but recognize that closed is a historical Baptist doctrine. It comes from a misunderstanding of 1Cor. 11: 27,28. We are told to examine ourselves not each other.

 

[DeaconDean]

As a matter of clairification, the opinions of open/closed communion was/is a matter of denominational convictions. As a Baptist, if I'm on vacation for example, if I'm visiting another Baptist church while on vacation and they are having communion, as long as their beliefs are along with mine, I have no problem having communion with them. I do believe that it would be improper for me to visit a Luthern church and have communion with them because their beliefs on communion are different than Baptist. (Consubstantiation) So in that instance, I would support closed communion. While I do support open communion within like beliving Baptists, I also support closed communion to those who hold to different communion beliefs than those of Baptists. And by that I mean, I have a relative who is Catholic. I have attended Mass with them just becuse they asked me too. But I did not participate in the communion just for my convictions. (I do not believe in transubstantiation.) So in this case would that be closed communion? I did not vote, for in my opinion, there are valid arguments to support both sides.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Ave Maria]

I strongly agree with open communion for all baptised Christians.

 

[HumbleMan]

If you're going to do it in a church setting, I agree with an open communion. If you are partaking unworthily, then that is between you and God. Judas took the bread, and he already knew what he was going to do.

I personally believe communion should be held at home with a group of believers who have come together for fellowship and worship. It makes it more personal than corporate worship. But that's just my opinion.

 

[mont974x4]

strongly agree with open...all who are His are my brothers and sisters

 

[eldermike]

I hold to open communion but recognize that closed is a historical Baptist doctrine. It comes from a misunderstanding of 1Cor. 11: 27,28. We are told to examine ourselves not each other.

Amen! Open, it's the only way to let God do the work of cleaning up his flock.

 

[rainbowpromise]

I believe it should be open communion.

Our church has communion after the evening service. I believe it should be after the morning service for our church. The reason I believe this is because more people are there in the morning. Some are unable to make it to evening service. Others would not partake anyway for various reasons. Those people would be made aware of possibility for deeper fellowship.

 

[Sword-In-Hand]

I support both. Our church practiced open communion, but I see why closed would work to.

 

[Simonline]

I believe in open communion, that all who are Christians at my church, and who are visiting are allowed to partake of the Lord's supper with us. Athough, my uncles Church, believes in closed communion, where only Christian members of his church are allowed to partake. What are your views ?

Participating in the Eucharist, Communion, Lord's Supper, Breaking of Bread, call it what you will, is a very serious matter that should never be taken lightly. For this reason, and because participation in the sacrament in an 'unworthy manner' can lead to extremely premature death (1Cor.11:27-30), the participation in the sacrament should be restricted to those who are believers according to the Biblical understanding of what constitutes a believer [see The Normal Christian Birth by David Pawson - available online from www.anchor-recordings.com (UK) or www.Goodseed.org (USA) or from your local Christian bookstore or public lending library] and not 'believers' according to the world's understanding of what constitutes a believer as anyone who is even remotely religious and who subjectively considers themselves to be a 'Christian'.

Therefore, it is my absolute conviction that the sacrament of the Eucharist should 'on pain of death (both temporal and everlasting)' be restricted to those who are believers in the Biblical sense of the term.

Apart from in the Roman Catholic Mass, only in more recent times has the 'Communion Service' been moved to 'centre stage' so that it has become virtually unavoidable for 'visitors' and 'adherents' to participate in the life of the local Body without being 'encouraged' to also participate in the sacrament of the 'Eucharist'.

In former generations the 'Communion Service' was distinctly separate from the main body of the Service with a convenient 'short break' in between to enable the visitors and adherents etc. to 'withdraw gracefully' without any feeling of discomfort or embarrassment about doing so. This would then allow the remaining believers to participate in the 'Communion Service' with the holiness and reverent awe appropriate to the occasion, possessing full understanding of what was actually taking place along with the commensurate spiritual and physical consequences of our respective attitudes and actions (1Cor.11:17-34)

Simonline.

 

[arunma]

If you're going to do it in a church setting, I agree with an open communion. If you are partaking unworthily, then that is between you and God. Judas took the bread, and he already knew what he was going to do.

I personally believe communion should be held at home with a group of believers who have come together for fellowship and worship. It makes it more personal than corporate worship. But that's just my opinion.

The idea of having communion at some time other than during a church service has been brought up a couple of times now, and I think that this isn't such a bad idea. I, and probably most others here, believe that church services are meant to be evangelistic. That is, church should be a good place for unbelievers, and so it is important that the Gospel be preached during any church service. Communion, however, is not meant for unbelievers. So by placing it during a church service, the unbeliever experiences social pressure to receive unworthily, and perhaps to his own destruction. So it may be a better idea to celebrate the eucharist outside of a church service (this communion service could be open, since people would be attending specifically to partake of the Lord's supper). That way, the risk of giving the communion elements to unbelievers would be minimized.

 

[Imblessed]

We have open communion at our church, but we also only do communion on Wednesdays, which are our "bible study" services. We do not do communion on the weekends, which is when most 'seekers' come to our church. Wednesday's are geared toward the already christian looking for more learning and maturity.

I think it works out well. Our church also emphasises the fact that communion should not ever be taken lightly, and should only be taken by a christian.

 

[TwinCrier]

The poll is rather confusing, but I support open communion, though I have no problem with a church body wanting to limit invitation to Lord's supper to those who aren't afraid to be affiliated with the church through membership.

 

[Erinwilcox]

My church practices closed communion, however it's open to people who are members of A church, not necessarily ours. However, that can leave out those people who are in-between memberships right now but who are truly saved--they left their old church are are trying to decide if they want to join ours.