Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • Open and Close Communion

    Загружено:

    amnonbpd
    5 просмотров21 страница
    Open and Close Communion Study

    Авторское право

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Доступные форматы

    PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    Open and Close Communion Study

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    5 просмотров21 страница

    Open and Close Communion

    Загружено:

    amnonbpd
    Open and Close Communion Study

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 21
    € couxunion couTENTS Open and Close Communion, by Slder Gec. I, Butler- = 2 Results of Oven Communion, Selected from Sabbath Recorder 13 Questions on Church Order, from the Sins - - 16 - - 16 To Correspondents, from the Review - Open Communion, by Mrs. E. G. White, in "Desire of Ages" 19 Bee don ‘From Review and Herald, 2 May 27, IB73S¢ ee Volume 41, page 185. : OPEN AND CLOSE COMMUNION ‘By Kid, Geo, I. Buther ‘Thip question has agitated the religious world greatly in the past, and possibly some of the regdera of the Review may have ‘eeen exercised upon it. I wich to present a few thouchts wpom wih concerning it, claiming cnly to speak my own individual senti- mentee If I understand their position, those who believe in open ‘communion take the ground that, in the act of partaking of the emblems. of the broken bedy and spilled blood of our Lord, they have nothing te do with others, but are simply to "examine thee selves. let-him eat of that bread and drink of that cup," vittually taking the position that we have nothing to do with emamining quoting the Verse, “Let a man examine himself, and se any body elses Therefore if indi qals may not have been baptized by immer sion, or may not be keeping the Sabbath, or may be reniss in many religious duties, doing things contrary to the pible, we do not say we fellowshipp them by the ect of partaking of the emblems with them In other words, these rho believe in open communion do not regard it as an.act by which we show fellowship for each other asmembers of Christ's body. Buty if we 40 regard it as an act by which we show fellow ship, it becomes a question of some magnitude as to who have a fight te partake of the adinances s ‘The first question that naturally arises in Tegard te the Lord's supper, is the object’ of its institution. Paul says” “Fer as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cupg ye de show fconth the Lord's death till He ome." . 1 Cor, 11325,264 “This do in remenbrance of Me," says Christ. The design of se then, is te bring’ vividly before the mind the death of our divine Lord, It is am memorial of His breken body and of pis blood that s shed forus. It must, therefore, be designed for His true eet “the true children of cod, It ie not for worlé ao It is not for those who have abused their high profession, and who are living in gis and disgracing His.name before the world ? . but for true Christians, Who were present when it was instituted “and to whom did our Saviour present these sacred emblems? only te His om chown atensni It wap not a promiscuous mal, as that which was served when the five thousand were.-— loaves and two fishes, but it was instituted on a special occasion, in’a private room, apart fram the crowd, end given alone to dip= ciples, But it is often asked, W: to partake in commanim with the rest? And if he cowlc partake, not Judas the apostate present at tie mend of thé SAVR0Us os ant Tonner sinners cofth and not violate the sacred design? We unswer that tne proves thut Judas was not We know that and Luke, would same, evidence, when carefully considered, present, ana did not partike of the Lord's suppers camual reading of the evangelists, Matthew, werk, , peem to show that he was :resent, and partbok. But when compared n that he was note with yohn's aecount, it seems pleL f the room being In the first three,we nave an account, o to be partakene When z procured in which the passover supper ‘and camenced to par- -gaviour told them that one of then would bettay Hime they began te ask; Hier; ib:4t I?"-4n great sorrow and amase- mente Heangwered, an Matthew has it, "He that dippeth His hand with Me 4 in the dishs- the. pame shall betray Mes" Or as John has ‘fad when He bad dipped the sop, He gave it te Judas Iscariot, the imone* = "And after the sop; Satan entered inte Hige" ite ¥ 2 John gives us-no uccount of the institution of the Lord's supper,, but the other three evangelists, in their account, speak. of the passover supper, and of the time when the Saviour told the disciples that one of then would betray Him, and ef pis dipping with him in the dish, as taking place previous te the institution ef the Lord's suppers The three de not tell us when = suas ape = “nemerial of His death, for this occurred some time after he received the portion from the hand of Christ, «0 Judagnad not part-in this divine memorial, So much for that objections We underst&nd that all the gcspel memorials were designed for true Christians”onlys Should’we not all insist that a per son was not a proper candidate for baptism until he had truly repented of his sins, and believed.on the Lord yesus christ? We should not think it right to go forwaré and administer this ordinanes until we had satisfactory evidence of on individual being in 4 propeh.ewdition, Baptiam {a properly reganied as mola ¥ the door into the churche It is a memorial of the turial and ( é 3B 2 a gee eee resurrection of Christ, Is not an equak degree of evidence - Tequisite before a person can properly partake of the supper? Neither can it be said that = person has ‘a right to partake of it simply because he has been baptised, for many a person falls avay spk elves o_evidence of his being « trueghristian at the time-he- Partakes of the commniony as he waild huve te give if he was a* Candidate for baption at the same monent, ‘Both mancrials were designed for precisely the same’ classe If we would consider it Proper to baptize s mam who was not Keeping the lav of God,’ then we ought to commune with uch an one, If not, then we should act commune togethers In the one case, we shor our saith an the hirer aherll gore ns Sty evden. 9g Sea Aerteg a dine Vicarious death of our saviour; in the otherp in wis burial and (e divine meseme resurrections oo as to wise meh; judge ye what I gaye The cup of blessing whioh we bless, is 1t not the catmunion of the blood of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not. the communion of the body of Christ? Yor we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all pertakers¢of that one bread, Behold Isracl after the flesh} orifices, partakers of the altar? are not they which eat ef the hat pay I then? that the icel is any thing, or thet which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? wut Iosay, that the things which the gentiles sacrifice they aacrifice to devils, © not to God} anc I woula not that ye shoulo have feilewship and the cup of nh cevile. Ye camot drink the cup of the Lorc, devils; ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils." 1 Cor, 10: 15-21. idolatry Here the apostle in giving instruction concernii brings in the Lord's supper, and gives Ys some very forcible ce ‘emoeming At. He addresses this instragtioa to wise men, as being. very important. He next calls the supper the goumunion of the: body..and blood of Christ,The meaning of that : term_in the English is union, fellowship. ‘In the Greek, the original word is generally rendered fellowship... Yor instances of the occurrence of the original word, I give the following, were it-ig dtalicized? “and théy oontiiitied steadfastly in the apostiest dootrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and prayers." Acts 2:425 . = "Ged is faithful, by wham ye were called unto the ship of Hie Son Jesus Christ our Lord." 1 Cor.1:9. "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowehip hath righteousness with unrighteousness, and what cawmnion hath light with darmess?* 2 Cpr. 6:14. yram these instances ef the ocourrences of the word, and others might be given, it will be reacily seen that it had the meaning of fellowship, i.e., that union which should extst between ihe menbers of Christ's body. Mellowship ie defined by webster to mean, “Mutual association ef persons on equal and friendly tems." The terms of asdociation would be manits~-* >So Af part of those whe rent--» <= s#am BUPPer Were true Christians ana yart were not so regarded. It would then be no fellowship or communion, and could net be so named. the fact that in that those whe partake spire- tion has eo called it, plainly signifies have mtual union with each other and confidence in each others qhis is still further show by the fact that he calle it the communion ef the bedy and blood of Christ-* ‘for we are all partakers of that one “Fer we being many are one bread, and one body} ch pread." What could be a higher evidence of union than for ea person, in each other's presence, to put forth his hand and pare Cc f t 3 Z an 6 ae = 2 take ‘of the mpstical flesh and bleod of the gon ef God? the spostie holds forth this mm very act of the cammunicants as the most striking evidence of onenesm Has the apostle assigned a: false reason? ye has, unless we admit that {tis a siga ef fellowships If there ip no real fellowship existing, the act tells & practioa] falsehoods We co that which reeliy signifies Union'when it "does not really exist. and I submit that a falses hood perpetrated under such colem circumstances, in the presence of such solewm mementoes, Could not be of minor consequences The apostle next speaks of ancient tstael eating of the scerifices of the ultar, as being partakere of the same, that 4b, “it was an act by which they were recognized as velonging to cod, and sharing the blessings derived from His worshina w= ++-— ayes “Te camot drink the cup of. the Lord, and the cup of devilst ye cannot be partakers ef the Lord's table, ani of the table of devils." Why not, 4f the views of our friends who hold to open communion be correct? why not, if they choge to sit at bot® tables and no one had a right to axamine any, but hie own case? why not, Unless sitting at the Lori's table was a mark of Christian fellow ship end union? I certainly ccnclude fran the apeaties! words, that these who Went to 1aei feasts, and purteck at their orgies, Would not be ullowed to come to the tubidye the Lorde ‘There cars e incividuals who wel contrary y Wes one cease, thn, te souné doctrine, coule not be permitted to comune. I think another is referred to in 1 Cor,5%114 "But now have I written unto you not te keep company, if any man that is called 4 brother be a foraicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, cr un extortioner} with such an one no tL refer to the communions “3 would seem rather strange te sup Youe that the common civilities of life could not be show to one who had committe’ one of there sins, when such an act had nothing to do with muy thought of fellowship, as we know the eating of a — common meal has not, - = ~ But should any one. say, Fou have ne_evidenoe. thal the: eating spoke of is the Lord's eupper, and no business to draw. the con sis from ith that such individuals: should “be excluded’ from, it, tet I would inguire if such suppose we should be less. particular in our asdocjates, wnen we eat the Loré's supper, than when we ext a4 common menl? Does the apostie forbid us euting @ coumor meal with a brother who does these things, and yet per mit us to freely come around +h- tear ~s wee LOT yerus with extortioners, drunkards, fornicators, idolaters, and covetous perm BOB, and | partake ef those sacreé mementoes of His death and suf ferings? - The very thought would be monetrouse Then the apostle coes plainly teddh’that we must draw some line of 44 veion whem it coges to participating in the Lordle suppers If, ut the Present day; every church of christians will eep B11. the "exter ticners™ and "covetous™ persons put, and all the idolaters, a good many, who now partuke Zreciy, will have te ve "examined" by cthére, as well as themselves? and I fear sae Communion seasens vould not be mtitmmet es well attenced us heretcforee go it seems that there is a line of division to be dram somewhere petween those “ho may parteke, ané those who my net, The question of course will be, Where? We now notice one more very impcrtant testimeny, 1 Care 1:1 1344 : "Now in this that I declare unto you, I praise you not, — that ye caxe together not for the better, but ‘for the firet of all, when ye came together in the cuuren, I hear “that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe ite “Whe” ye came together, therefore, inte one place, « « « ye cannot eat (margin] the Lord's supper. Yor in eating everyone taketh before other his own supperj and one is hungry; and another is drunken. (er Satisriea, as the Diaglott has it)e Here we isam that ai~ Vinions and parties in the church make it improper or impossible to celebrate the conmunion under such circumstances, and the rea San appeare very manifest when we cmsider that it is u token of felloBlinip between mexbers of Carist's bodys As long as no such “fellowship existed, one important idea to be expressed by it would bevlackings This should ever be remembered where churches are divided into parties and schisms, Undertaking :o celebrate the Lord’s cupper under such circumstances little better than mockerye she Spirit ef the Lord will stay aways . qhe apostle next gives the account of the institution and is to “show forth the the design of thts memorial, telling us 4 Lord's death ti11 ye came," and that we°are to eat and drink in remembrance of Christ, ‘Wherefore.whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink thia oup of the Lent. wawerthily, shel) the bocy and blood of the Lord. But let a man exasine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and @rink of thas J) oS aumnation eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth ane dr inke® to himself, not discerning the Lord's body, o> this case many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleeps It seems very evident from the whole tenor teian church, so much $ of this passage that great disorder had orept into the Corin so that the whole design of this institution was lost sight of, ties and dissensicas, but they ima game co far as to ‘make this most solemn memor fal. Ante an eccagion of feasting and jellity, t421 God was ‘displeased with them, and many died én oensequence of wis judgments. This is evidently what he means by. their ‘eating and drinking unworthilyp" for he adds, they did not @isoern the Lerd!s bodys: Theyhad. entirely perverted.the institutians — ‘examined themselves" closely when they ‘eppreached They spould have * the Lori's tables” ghey should Have made it a solemn occasions But because he says they should examine themselves,..this certainly. ‘goes not forb whatbther seriptures make a plain duty, It does not provide for a promiscuous gathering of Christiens, and "co wetous men, and extortioners," eround the Lord's table to partake of the "one bread" and calling that a commnion, in which the very essen tial idea of fellowship is all lost sight of, If it aid, it vould certainly nullify the idea of its being a memorial mf de signed for Christians elene, yt does not forpid the protection of this memorial from being tumedinto a panne thing expressive of no neamess to each other in. the members of Christ's body, Let us always do what the apostle says, "examine ourselves" previeus artaking of these emblems, put do not let us draw inferences from this declaration net warranted by the languace, especially when it will lead'us contrary to other plain scriptures. fimjm Some conscientious sculs have been so troubled in reference to the expresdons, "examine yourselves," and "eating ené drinking unworthily," and "drinking damnation to thensel ves," that they dare not pertake of the Lord's supper at all, They felt that they were unworthy when they did examine theaselves, and feared they should bring the frown of God upon themselves. To Seriptures The apostle is speaking ef those who had perverted the design of the ordinance, turning it inte a feasting occasion, Gathering in « diserderly manner, when there were parties and divisions among them, wiich rendered it impossible to properly partake of the “one bread and one cupe" And above all, they dia net<"diseern" the Lerdts bedye¥—-the-real ebjeot of the memorial wes lost sight of. Bhat which was designed te keep Christ's death in memory *t41] ye canes," was forgotten, Had they "examined themselves," they would not have been left to such cisorder. They were thoughtless and careless of. sacred thing This does not refer at all to such as feel 2 sense of the great sacredness of this memorial and that they are unworthy to partake of ite on the contrary, I claim that such are the only ones who are fit to-partake of the Lord!s suppers & man who feels whole and self complacent-when partaking of the emblems given to commemorate eur dying Lord, and feels that he is worthy,’ is surely an object of Pitys What sense can such a person have of the nature of sin, which caused that Saviour to die for him a cruel death? Our sims Caused the death of the gon of Gods If €¥e) there is a time in man's life vhen he ought to feel unworthy, it is vhen taking part in the celebration of the Saviourla passion. fet no humble, conscientious goul then stand back in fear of such expressions as “eating and drinking damnation to himself," &c.; for they apply to on entirely different classe Im conclusion, then, we claim to have proven that tie ine stitution under conwideration was desicced for true christians alongjé The saviour, when He instituted it, communicated it to no others, ts being called the communion, plainly implies that tt was a mark of Ghriation felewsnipe the ‘faot that those whe partake of the "one bread” ardienminated ty the apostle “ene body," is strong evidence of this, And further, when the apostle paya that those whe partook of the table ef devils could not oat the Lerd's supper, and that “oeveteus" persms and extortioners were not proper subjects with whea te eat, ke plainly the there ina. line of divisian tebe drawn samewhere, Where, then, should. this line be dram, and with whom shall. we commune?. We answer? ‘hose who have been truly mptiged by gospel baptism, and who take Gods holy law as their rule of morulity, ami. take upon themselves the obligations of the church covenant when practicable, and live consistent christian lives, are the proper ones to partake of the emblems of Christ's breken body, And we do not see how one of these cmnditions can be properly left outs What? io tere herd or unreasonable in either of them? What good reason could be assigned by eny person for refusing te act upon either? should not: every true christian do each one of these duties? Could he be &,follower of Christ, and refuse to live up te either? We think not, It ie no more exclusive te.require these prereguisites to commmnion’than for baptigm, and we certaihily do in thelatters with the exception of baptism itself, Let-us be wnsistent and reaonable, and not call mxity charitys | To offer the emblems to a person Wham We Mild bo. ty ¢ church in full fellowship, sume moment receive as @ member of 4 peems to me a most manifest inconsistency. It eunnot be justi- fiedby any principle of reasoning with which I am acquaintede Neither would it be ile likely to gain the respect of any sensible Persoh whose favor we worth obtaining, But, on the contrary 44 would cause thom to despise us afinc nsiatent with ourf own prow fession, and as practically saying that our views were of no tm \ ther, they acknowledge each other as ‘weanding on the same Platform, as brethren, and justly too, It seems perfectly reasonable for us te say te all that mm we comme with such, and such alene, as take upon themselves the some obligations, se far as-great essentials are concerned, as ¥e.d0curselyem, It. 1a, no hardship for: othem, for us te refuse to go further than this. Why should they ask us to cammune with them wien they are unwilling to teke such obligations upon them” &s we take? Why not be content to commune with those tho stand on their om platform? When they ask us to come to their level, they ack us virtually to say we do not think those things that separate us in practice ani theory of any red, practical eecount, And that is really the meaning of open cammunion. All who feel thus oun consistently practice it, and no others. For one, I beg to be excused. Whitewater, Wiss, April 30, 18734 Quoted from the See jeom der in Review and perald for Nov.4, 3 Freie nos Bt, ope lOS : RESULTS OF OPEN COMMUNION _ Fhe Japtist Union makes the statement that close camunien has hindered the growth of the Seventh-day paptist denominations flow it comes by ‘oes 4nformation en this subject we do net knows That it speaks what it supposes te be true-we do net doubt, but we think it has been misinformed, ~The question as stated is one purely of fact and nct ef hypothesis. We can see how en ardent, might suppose that. the practice of close mimgm open commun: communion might retard the growth of the seven tg-duy Baptist den- omination, but that ig a different thing fram saying that it does. But, suppose the statement te be true,m dces that prove the prac tice of restriated communion contrary to scripture? We think such a method.of reasoning not only fallacious but dungerouse A pound, though slow growin, & to be preferred to a rapity unhealthy onés when the choice lies between these to, Wo.know | souething of the fascinating idea ef a repid growth; but nen this cames to be stronger than our love of trutn, it is mae than unsafe, it is ruinous, Under these circumstances, we =re lisble to be overpowered with the temptation to "mix water with and co te weaken our testimcny against error, and in the same pro« portich, to weaken our testimony for the truth. According to our idea, the Freewill paptists have, by adgpting the practice ef open communion, Weakenedtheir testimony egainst Pedobaptisme They are paptists, but paptistsbomewiat shorn of their strength. weit Fesult ef their position, ~ qhat thi = : Aen great pedobaptist werld should largely be epen Commniste, is no wonder te use s The wonder ig rather. that they are not all of that way of thinking. 2 a Severmment, and this covers ase--+*a11y the whark. ° theny should. 20%. hold common views on the communion questien? There 1s ne reason why they should not, and it seems te us that” all this talk about the exeroise of great charity, in their case, in a great boasting about @ ratherm small matter. Why should gether? not these who agree, or co nearly agrfec, caamne ¢ But when we consider the gase of Baptists and seventh-day Baptists, entirely another view presents itself These denamina~ tions are separated from ethers on, the brova line of Seripture teachings concerning ccmmandments and ordinances, They protest that the charge that they are separatists, throug self-righteous ness or want of charity, is falees They mey indeed be mistaken in their views of uty, or in their views of themselves, but in 80. far as. they see this question, they are compelled, on the greund ings, te take the of fidelity to their convictions of pible te course they do, But our views differ tran those held by the Union on the results of the practice of restricted cam paptist t, several notable munion by Seventh-day Baptiste. yn they instances heve cccurred in which cood brethren, believere in the aon ‘beth, tut open communists, have organized upen tha!

    Вам также может понравиться