Books Concerning the Lord's Supper

Breaking off of Thomas' request for books concerning an unbiased (as much as possible anyhow) overview of different theologies, Kevin's suggestion peaked my interest. Kevin suggested the "Views" books such as "The Lord's Supper: Five Views".

I would really like to find a book comparing the justifications/scriptural support for Closed, Close and Open Communion. Looking at The Lord's Supper: Five Views' sample pages I could not tell if this book achieves what I am looking for simply because I am not familiar with the practices of all of the different different denominations mentioned. Would this be a good book for my questions or is there something else that you know of that would be better? Thanks.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

William

I would really like to find a book comparing the justifications/scriptural support for Closed, Close and Open Communion.

Rick, I would think this one resource is probably as good as you might get for closed, close, or open communion. According to what I have heard, close and closed communion are the same thing. The way that I would compare the three is closed and close are effectively members of that congregation or members in other congregations with the same beliefs (having a communicant membership) at the Lord's supper table. Open communion would allow anyone and every "christian" to the table. More than that I can tell my conservative Lutheran practice if you email me at luvmath (at symbol here) yahoo (period here) com.

Another good resource if you have it is Francis Pieper's Christian Dogmatics or Theodore Mueller Christian Dogmatics. You might find it talked about in other "Dogmatics" books. It seems that there was a reading list on the Lords Supper. other terms to search would be eucharist or holy communion.

Rick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/157265#Comment_157265

According to what I have heard, close and closed communion are the same thing.

Thanks for the reply William. I'll probably buy it tomorrow. A lot of congregations in my denomination practice close communion. The difference in close and closed, as far as I know, is that with a closed communion, only congregation members in good standing may partake. In close communion, if you are a member of a congregation that has close ties or very similar standards than they are welcome to partake with the non-member congregation as long as long as they give testimony that they wish to participate and they are in good standing at their home congregation.

I am at a crossroads with my feelings of the three. I was raised and taught one way, but now that I am older and studying more, I feel the desire to learn more about my position rather than just saying "that is how we've always done it". [:)]

Thanks again.

William

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/157270#Comment_157270

closed communion, only congregation members in good standing may partake

Yes, I can see that as a qualifying difference. I am considering that same book myself....It would be nice to see more topics done the same way but it could get long and drawn out because of other teachings that might affect another.

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/157265#Comment_157265

FYI, in both Baptist and Reformed traditions, you'll find open, close, and closed communion (I can't speak to the others), so just one view from each major tradition may not cover all the arguments. Plus the arguments for closed communion differ between the differing traditions (because of differing views on the visible vs. invisible church, on how the church is defined, and on what the responsibilities of the leaders are).

William

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/157280#Comment_157280

Baptist and Reformed traditions, you'll find close and closed communion

In my first 22 years of life, I never experienced a baptist or reformed tradition that held to either of the two above. Of course, I will not deny it because I have experienced very different teaching at 2 different "independant fundamental baptist churches." I just remember they were both open communion. My first experience of "closed, or close" communion was Lutheran.

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/157281#Comment_157281

In my first 22 years of life, I never experienced a baptist or reformed tradition that held to either of the two above.

That's because it's in the minority in those traditions. The wikipedia article mentions some examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_communion

Mike Childs

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/157280#Comment_157280

That is a good point Todd. The same would be true in most traditions.

I would love to find a book that presents as objectively as possible the scriptural and logical arguments for all sides. I can understand why one would not feel free to open communion to those who deny the basic truths of the Gospel, and therefore could not be considered true Christians. But I find it odd that one would deny communion to someone whom you recognize as a brother in Christ. A book that discussed the scriptural reasons for that would interest me.

(Not looking for or willing to participate in a debate on the subject. Just would like a good book with information.)

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/158791#Comment_158791

But I find it odd that one would deny communion to someone whom you recognize as a brother in Christ.

I don't have a book, but the arguments I've encountered (from the traditions I been in) include:

What criteria do you use to recognize a church visitor as a brother and how do you do it?
How do you determine if a person is under discipline from another congregation (barred from communion for unrepentant willful public sin), and what do you do about it?

I did a search in Logos for several things and got very little in return on this topic. I suspect you might find commentaries that discuss it regarding 1Cor 11:17-34, but I didn't dig into those.

Kevin Becker

Rick, the 5 views book doesn't look like it would be about the open and closed view of communion. It is probably more about what happens during Eucharist. Roman Catholics believe in Transubstantiation, Lutherans in Consubstantiation, The others tend to have some variation on the memorial view of communion.

Rick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/158806#Comment_158806

Thanks Kevin, I backed off of buying it when I read some of the other posts above and taking a second look at it. I believe you are correct. Thanks again to all who posted.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/158813#Comment_158813

I can' find any book that addresses this in a major way, but try searching your library for "closed communion" and see what snippets of information you can find. I did find this excerpt in Theologians of the Baptist Tradition by Timothy George and David Dockery, in an exposition about Southern Baptist New Testament scholar Frank Stagg: "Providing an excellent survey of the various Lord’s Supper traditions in the New Testament, Stagg published in 1969 'The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament.' He shows an uncanny ability, once again, to reflect contemporary scholarship and yet do so in a way that is enormously relevant to the life of the church. Questions related to 'open' and 'closed' communion have frequently been at issue for Baptists, and Stagg’s survey of the biblical traditions with regard to the Lord’s Supper does not fail to address such matters."

I've been able to locate that article. It's from Review and Expositor, volume 66 (1969), pp. 5-14. That volume is among the ones included in Logos's electronic edition of Review and Expositor, which you might already have as part of the Theological Journal Library.

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/158806#Comment_158806

Rick, the 5 views book doesn't look like it would be about the open and closed view of communion. It is probably more about what happens during Eucharist. Roman Catholics believe in Transubstantiation, Lutherans in Consubstantiation, The others tend to have some variation on the memorial view of communion.

Not Lutheran, please... (or at least, for sure, not most Lutherans) *smile* From Wikipedia: 　

Consubstantiation

is a theological doctrine that (like transubstantiation) attempts to describe the nature of the Christian Eucharist in concrete metaphysical terms. It holds that during the sacrament, the fundamental "substance" of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present. The doctrine of consubstantiation is often held in contrast to the doctrine of transubstantiation
.The doctrine of consubstantiation, advocated by the medieval scholastic theologian Duns Scotus,[1] is erroneously identified as the eucharistic doctrine of Martin LutherHYPERLINK \l "cite_note-1"[2], who defined his doctrine as the sacramental union.[3] While some Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, others reject the concept because it substitutes what they believe to be the biblical doctrine with a philosophical construct and implies, in their view, a natural, local inclusion of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine of the eucharist.[4]

consubstantiation in that it asserts the simultaneous presence of four essences in the Eucharist: that of the consecrated bread, the Body of Christ, the consecrated wine, and the Blood of Christ; but it differs in that it does not assert a "local" (three dimensional, circumscribed) presence of the Body and Blood in the sacramental bread and wine respectively, which is rejected as "gross, carnal, and Capernaitic" in the Formula of Concord.[7] The term "consubstantiation" has been associated with such a "local" inclusion of the Body and Blood of Christ in the sacramental bread and wine as has the term "impanation." Lutherans have also rejected the designation of their position as consubstantiation because they believe it, like transubstantiation, is a philosophical explanation of the Real Presence

, whereas the Sacramental Union is a description of the doctrine.
transubstantiation and impanation
in this way:

"

... we do not make Christ's body out of the bread ... Nor do we say that his body comes into existence out of the bread [i.e. impanation]. We say that his body, which long ago was made and came into existence, is present when we say, "This is my body." For Christ commands us to say not, "Let this become my body," or, "Make my body there," but, "This is my body."

[8]

"

Sorry I don't have time at the moment to compose a more succinct paragraph. Peace to you - and Joy in the Lord! *smile*

Kevin Becker

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/158881#Comment_158881

Not Lutheran, please... (or at least, for sure, not most Lutherans)

Thanks, not being Lutheran, I wasn't familiar with the diversity of views on communion, just the thumbnail I had from systematic theology class. I apologize to the Lutherans among us.

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/158890#Comment_158890

No need whatsoever to apologise, Kevin. Actually, your post was quite good, just slightly off. You contribute so much to the Forums, and you are truluy appreciated.

I should apologise for such a "sloppy" post. One of these days I will figure out the formating issues on these forums.

Peace and Joy to you! *smile*

Rick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/158856#Comment_158856

but try searching your library for "closed communion" and see what snippets of information you can find.

I don't have the theological journals in Logos, but do have a subscription to them at Galaxie's web site. I completed a search for "close communion" and got a pretty good result. I'll probably look at them a bit deeper in the future.

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/158910#Comment_158910

Rick, I tried the following search and got back what appeared to be some food for thought on the topic.

closed WITHIN 5 WORDS communion OR open WITHIN 5 WORDS communion

There doesn't seem to be any one specfic resource so you would probably be wise to make use of clippings in this case.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/159068#Comment_159068

Rick, a couple of other phrases to search for in your library on this topic would be "altar fellowship" and "fencing the table." There are entries on the former in NIDCC (New International Dictionary of the Christian Church) and Dictionary of Christianity in America. They don't say much, but the latter gives a bibliographic reference to D. Baillie and J. Marsh, eds., Intercommunion (1952). There was no preview of this book available on Google Books, but you might be able to get it from your local library via Inter-Library Loan.

I also found a fairly substantial discussion in Philip Graham Ryken's Preaching the Word: Exodus -- Saved for God's Glory, under the heading "A Place at the Table" (that link might only work in 4.1 since it's the new format with offset). The practice of closed communion seems to stem from Ex 12:43-45 pertaining to the exclusivity of the Passover.

Another interesting tidbit comes from the Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, p. 285, in the entry on Robert Hall, Jr., "an important advocate and spokesman for the Particular Baptists.":

Between 1814 and 1820 Hall was engaged in a literary debate with Joseph Kinghorn, pastor at the Baptist Church in Norwich, over closed and open communion. The practice of open communion reflected a significant theological move for Baptists on both sides of the Atlantic. Hall was considered a leading liberal thinker and much in tune with the future of the emerging denomination. In his classic tract Terms of Communion, which he patterned on the work of John Bunyan and Robert Robinson, Hall dealt with the question of whether the acknowledged unbaptized person ought to be allowed to take communion at the Lord’s Table, unravelling Abraham Booth’s classic work An Apology for the Baptists (1778). Hall contended that no person or council had any right to make the terms of communion different from those of salvation. Further, he found no warrant in the early church for closed communion and believed that it destroyed the unity of the Body of Christ that the New Testament prized so highly. Kinghorn responded with his tract Baptism a Term of Communion at the Lord’s Supper (1816). In his retort to Kinghorn and Strict Baptists, Hall referred to closed communion as ‘a pestilential evil still cherished and retained in too many British churches’. He found that the zeal of the opponents of open communion was out of proportion to that of his own following and that those who opposed his position sought to embarrass and discredit him. Throughout the exchange Hall remained on close personal terms with Kinghorn and enjoyed Kinghorn’s support for his advocacy of press freedom.

You can find Hall's On Terms of Communion, in its entirety, on Google Books. Booth's An Apology for the Baptists is also there. Kinghorn's Baptism a Term of Communion is not available in more than snippet, but the full text of his A Defense of "Baptism a Term of Communion" in answer to the Rev. Robert Hall's Reply is up there. The source of the quote "[that] pestilential evil still cherished and retained in too many British churches" is Hall's A Further Vindication of the Practice of Free Communion which is available (in a not very readable plain-text format) as part of the full text of Hall's works here.

Have fun exploring all this internecine warfare! [:)]

Hope this helps in your quest for the truth.

UPDATE: Another book I'd recommend is Take This Bread: The Spiritual Memoir of a Twenty-First Century Christian by Sara Miles. It includes a quite radical defense of open communion based on Sara's experience of coming to Christ through having been welcomed to the Lord's Table with no preconditions. Not that I necessarily agree that such an experience should be normative, but any thorough exploration of this subject needs to take into account the broad spectrum of viewpoints. And it sure is fascinating how God breaks right through the fences we set up to protect ourselves from unholiness.

Simon’s Brother

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/159079#Comment_159079

Another interesting tidbit comes from the Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, p. 285, in the entry on Robert Hall, Jr., "an important advocate and spokesman for the Particular Baptists.":
Between 1814 and 1820 Hall was engaged in a literary debate with Joseph Kinghorn, pastor at the Baptist Church in Norwich, over closed and open communion. The practice of open communion reflected a significant theological move for Baptists on both sides of the Atlantic. Hall was considered a leading liberal thinker and much in tune with the future of the emerging denomination. In his classic tract Terms of Communion, which he patterned on the work of John Bunyan and Robert Robinson, Hall dealt with the question of whether the acknowledged unbaptized person ought to be allowed to take communion at the Lord’s Table, unravelling Abraham Booth’s classic work An Apology for the Baptists (1778). Hall contended that no person or council had any right to make the terms of communion different from those of salvation. Further, he found no warrant in the early church for closed communion and believed that it destroyed the unity of the Body of Christ that the New Testament prized so highly. Kinghorn responded with his tract Baptism a Term of Communion at the Lord’s Supper (1816). In his retort to Kinghorn and Strict Baptists, Hall referred to closed communion as ‘a pestilential evil still cherished and retained in too many British churches’. He found that the zeal of the opponents of open communion was out of proportion to that of his own following and that those who opposed his position sought to embarrass and discredit him. Throughout the exchange Hall remained on close personal terms with Kinghorn and enjoyed Kinghorn’s support for his advocacy of press freedom.
You can find Hall's On Terms of Communion, in its entirety, on Google Books. Booth's An Apology for the Baptists is also there. Kinghorn's Baptism a Term of Communion is not available in more than snippet, but the full text of his A Defense of "Baptism a Term of Communion" in answer to the Rev. Robert Hall's Reply is up there. The source of the quote "[that] pestilential evil still cherished and retained in too many British churches" is Hall's A Further Vindication of the Practice of Free Communion which is available (in a not very readable plain-text format) as part of the full text of Hall's works here.

Interesting that you mention Hall and Kinghorn Rosie. I came across the following book review in Reformation and Revival Volume 6

The Life and Works of Joseph Kinghorn (Volume One), Compiled and ed. Terry Wolever. Springfield, Missouri: Particular Baptist Press (1995). 530 pages, cloth, $24.50.

One of the most fascinating elements of his ministry was his debate and discussion with his good friend, Robert Hall, on the issue of open or closed communion. Hall was an ardent open communionist (as was C.H. Spurgeon), but Kinghorn took the opposite position. He was convinced that believer’s baptism must precede participation at the Lord’s table. A future volume in this series will carry the complete correspondence and debate between the two men. Regardless of our theological positions most Baptist churches today practice open communion, that is, they serve the elements and let the person in the pew decide whether or not to participate. Given the ambiguities of our practice, perhaps this is an issue we need to review. What a better way than to hear again the voices of Hall and Kinghorn as they debate the issue.

Rick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/159084#Comment_159084

Thank you all for your replies! I'll be trying your suggestions soon. [:)]