The Lord's Supper:
What Is Its
Scriptural Extent?

Brother Colin M. Dyer
Deacon of Mt. Calvary MBC
Nashville, TN 37211
July 12, 1988

PREFACE

Is there anything in existence which has been more variously understood than the book of all books-the Bible? Select any of its subjects, and undoubtedly you can find someone who will differ with you on its interpretation. The subject being considered in this undertaking is no different, but there is an element of sadness in the fact that as Baptists we are not closer together on our understanding of it.

Different opinions have long existed concerning the right of one church to invite visitors from other churches to partake of the Lord's supper. While these opinions stem from a multitude of reasons, the people who hold them basically fall into three classes: those who favor the invitation; those who oppose it; and those who are undecided, leaning first to one side and then the other. Possibly a fourth class would be composed of those who have no opinion. For most of my Christian life I was a member of the undecided class, and I've heard and read comments which support my belief that many others share this position.

Just as any concerned Baptist would be, I was uncomfortable with being in this indecisive state, and I began to feel that surely there must be a Scriptural answer to this controversial issue. I was impressed with the idea that the subject should not be so mysterious, but that God would have given His churches sufficient instructions concerning the supper's proper observance. Knowing that God is not the author of confusion, I became convinced that He did not intend to leave His churches in doubt about such an impor­tant aspect of church life.

There is nothing to be gained when churches (and individual members within a church) disagree about this issue. A fair analysis of it, including an examination of questions which have been raised respecting it, should help to bring us together. Unfortunately, there seem to be some subjects which are "swept under the carpet" rather than to be opened to a fair discussion. We are kept in a state of darkness as long as we avoid an examination of difficult subjects. Having the proper objective, always motivated by love, we should welcome opportunities to discuss and learn more about anything in the Bible.

Through much study, prayer, and meditation, I finally reached a conclusion which I believe is Scripturally sound. It may not satisfy some people, but I feel that it harmonizes with all of the Scriptures which I've been able to associate with this issue. Whereas previously I was uncomfortable with being in an indecisive state, now I feel at peace. I reached peace of mind only after laying aside personal feelings in favor of examining each viewpoint, as best I could, by the Word of God. Of course, that is the secret to all of life's problems, but for many situations, we may spend a lifetime without unlocking and using that secret.

My desire is that this undertaking will accomplish two things: that it will honor God, and that it will be beneficial to others who have experienced the same concerns that I have. The work is in no way comprehensive, but I have endeavored to include those topics which would outline the basic thrust of the two opposing viewpoints. Those who are interested in doing so might examine other questions and concerns in light of the supplied material.

I am indebted to a number of people who, whether pro or con, have either written about or commented on this subject, but I have based my conclusions upon my own examination of the Bible. Far from laying any new foundation, I have tried to build my analysis upon basic principles which staunch Baptists historically have believed the Bible to teach. I trust that I have not misrepresented the truth.

PROPOSITION AND ANALYTICAL APPROACH

The Lord's Supper: What Is Its Scriptural Extent? More specifically, can a church Scripturally eat the Lord's supper with visitors, and/or can visitors Scripturally eat the Lord's supper with a church? (Lest there be any misunderstanding, only visitors from Baptist churches of the same faith and order are under consideration in this proposition. Supposedly, other visitors are not invited to eat in the first place.)

In dealing with this proposition, facets of each side of the issue are presented followed by an analysis of their validity.

DEFINITION OF A CHURCH

To provide such a definition almost seems unnecessary, but for the sake of reference at a later point, a few basic attributes will be listed.

A church is a body of Scripturally baptized believers who are locally united in covenant relationship to carry out the Lord's commandments. It is designed according to the New Testament pattern, and it has the responsibility to guard and keep the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints. It is prohibited from performing duties which were not assigned to it; that is, it is an executive body and not a legislative one. Being fully equipped with God's perfect rules, it must not legislate new ones.

  THE CHURCH-PLUS-VISITORS VIEWPOINT

1. Visitors Ate the Supper with a Church at Troas

Let's begin this analysis with what apparently is the chief support for this viewpoint. Although the text contains no reference to the Lord's supper as such, some people surmise from Acts 20 that Paul and a few disciples observed the supper with a supposed church at Troas, thereby setting an example of inter-church communion. Acts 20:7 states: "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread..."; and verse 11 states: "When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed." Evidently, this is taken as sure proof that visitors ate the Lord's supper with a church at Troas. Will that position stand up under examination?

Taking such a position, based upon such vague evidence, really begs the question. If someone were to use comparable evidence to support the plan of salvation, his position would indeed be shaky. Much could be written to explain this event, but the response must be limited to a few brief comments.

The Bible teaches, and Baptists believe, that the supper is a church ordinance and that a church must be assembled in order to observe it (I Cor. 10:16-17; 11:17-22, 33). So far as we are able to find, neither the Bible nor authentic history mentions any church at Troas; consequently, there is no proof of any church being assembled which could observe the supper. According to the record, the assembly included only one person (Eutychus) who might have been a member of such a church. The seven disciples who accompanied Paul into Asia, and who went before him to Troas , were from diverse parts of the world. Acts 16:1, 20:4, and 21:29 inform us that six of the seven were associated with cities which were located (as can be ascer­tained from a map of that region) at distances of 130 to 360 miles from Troas, and surely men from such remote areas would not have been members of a church at Troas. If the seventh, Tychicus, were from Troas, doesn't it seem strange that he was not so identified since that was the very city in which the disciples were gathered?

Without adding to the Scriptures, we can identify only ten people who were gathered together at Troas: the seven disciples who have just been mentioned, Eutychus, Paul, and the writer (believed to be Luke). Not one of them can be identified with a church at Troas, and only one of them (Eutychus) could even be considered as possibly holding membership in such a church. Doubtless, even if Eutychus were a Troas church member, none of us believes that one church member alone could serve the supper. Furthermore, statements such as "to break bread" and "had broken bread, and eaten" do not always refer to the Lord's supper. To illustrate this fact, let's notice another scene involving Paul as he was being transported via ship to Rome: "And when he had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to God in presence of them all: and when he had broken it, he began to eat" (Acts 27:35). The language of this verse is very similar to that of Acts 20, but we know that Paul here began to eat an ordinary meal rather than the Lord's supper. The context plainly shows that Paul and his shipmates were eating food to satisfy their natural hunger.

While one might argue that the existence of a Troas church is within the realm of possibility, that is about the most that could be said about it; however, even if there were such a church, proof would still be lacking to show that Paul and the other disciples ate the Lord's supper with it. Baptists have always been champions of providing real proof, not mere possibilities, to support their beliefs. The present question deserves the same type of proof, but apparently there is none that will stand up under examina­tion. Mere speculation does not satisfy the need.

The evidence in this case is quite insufficient to support the proponents' claim since the very thing that needs to be proved must be assumed as fact. On the contrary, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the disciples came together to eat an ordinary meal prior to their early departure "on the morrow" (Acts 20:7, 11). There must be, however, a more complete analysis of our subject before we can reach a satisfactory conclusion.

2. One Baptism / Transferable Membership

Since one baptism equips a person with a transferable membership (that is, we would accept for membership one whose baptism had been administered by another Scriptural church), some people conclude that it also equips him to commune with any church that he might visit.

The logic behind this conclusion is unclear, but if the concept were true, one might wonder what there is about a church that is unique. Surely, giving members the right to vote in business meetings is not its only unique feature. There must be some very special qualities associated with a "local" church, else our Lord would have favored some­thing of a more universal nature. The Bible, of course, describes no such universal church. (Note that it is some­what redundant to refer to a church as being local, but such reference is for emphasis.)

Although the two ordinances are related, we should keep in mind that they are not the same. Each is designed, as a detailed comparison would demonstrate, to represent different aspects of the gospel. Of course, a detailed comparison is beyond the scope of this undertaking, but just a few comments will be sufficient to identify some of their distinguishing marks. With the aid of some concise state­ments from a book written by Buell H. Kazee, let's briefly notice some of these distinguishing characteristics.

Buell H. Kazee was a Baptist preacher, author, and teacher, and concerning baptism, he said, "The right observance of this ordinance will separate the saved from the lost, the church from the world. The act of baptism implies that the one making the profession has, in that one's own experience, died to the world in all its connections and has arisen to walk in newness of life. From there on, his citizenship is in Heaven, and his association in this world is with pilgrims and strangers who likewise are on the journey home. Nobody has any reason to walk through the baptismal waters who has not had this divine experience" (Buell H. Kazee, The Church and the Ordinances [Little Rock: The Challenge Press, 1972], p. 94). In the act of baptism, one officially and symbolically declares that he has been cleaned up on the inside, or born again. When Scripturally administered, it is a one-time act, and it lays the foundation for an obedient Christian life.

The Lord's supper, on the other hand, is designed to be repeated, and "A proper observance of this ordinance will maintain the separation of the church from the world. It centers around the death of our Lord and keeps the believer reminded that he has declared before the church and the world his own death with Christ. It is also his own public declaration that he is in fellowship with the people of God in the continued experience of dying to the world and living unto Christ" (Ibid). The Apostle Paul wrote: 'I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Gal. 2:20).

Assuredly, the ordinances are closely related, but there are differences in both the frequency and purpose of their administration. We cannot, therefore, logically assume that members of another church should be invited to the supper just because we might accept them for membership should they desire to unite with us.

While much space could be devoted to these concepts, let's consider this topic from a practical standpoint. Do we accept anyone for membership before we satisfy ourselves that such a one truly is a member in good standing in a church of the same faith and order? Instead, don't we first ask that church to send a letter of recommendation which confirms the person's membership and good standing? Upon reception of a good recommendation, we then take action in a business meeting to approve the letter and, thereby, to accept the person for membership in our body. Only after we have taken this action is the person granted all rights and privileges of the church. (Again, let's emphasize that these rights and privileges involve much more than just the right to vote.) Now, we rightly take these precautionary measures when deciding whether or not to accept a person for fellowship in our body, but do we exercise the same precautions when the Lord's supper is under consideration?

God has entrusted the church with the grave responsibility of properly administering the supper, and we must not take this responsibility lightly. Being good stewards of this trust requires that we take every reasonable precaution to assure that those who eat the supper are Scripturally qualified to do so; that is, that they satisfy the prerequisites of having a testimony of salvation, Scriptural baptism, and a godly manner of living. We can and should know the status of our own members, but we are restricted in such knowledge where visitors are concerned. Since we have no authority to actively determine their status, much less to take any corrective action should such be indicated, we can only assume that they satisfy all of the prerequisites. If, therefore, our church invites them to eat, we must willfully disregard the responsibility which God has entrusted to our care. Should, however, the same visitors present themselves to the church for membership, we would not merely make assumptions about their qualifications and approve their membership on the spot, but, rather, we would take the more rational steps previously mentioned.

Aren't these actions inconsistent, to say the least? On the one hand, the church, for all practical purposes, permits visitors to decide for themselves the validity of their qualifications, while on the other hand, it requires proof. It is also worth noting that sometimes there are visitors in our services about whom we know little or nothing, yet they too are left to determine their own eligibility to eat the supper even if they have never been saved. Once visitors are invited to the supper, a church effectively yields its authority over it.

3. Express Fellowship

Some people think that we should extend the invitation in order to express our fellowship with other churches. They supply us with no Scriptural support for this concept, but is this really the purpose of the supper? Our Lord said, "This do in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19). Certainly, all partakers must be in fellowship with each other, else the supper can't be observed as intended. Each member shares with his church the responsibility to determine whether or not they are in fellowship; however, the ultimate determination of this fellowship must rest with the church. The church's ability to make this determination is predicated upon its authority to exercise judgment, but this authority extends no further than its membership. Outsiders (visitors) cannot be included as we learn from I Cor. 5:12: "...Do not ye judge them that are within?" A church might fail to exercise this judgment, but its right to do so must apply to every person coming to the supper. There is no such right where visitors are concerned; consequently, true fellowship can neither be determined nor assured.

If fellowship cannot be determined, possibly there are divisions in the congregation which would render it unable to eat the supper. If divisions do exist, an attempt to eat the supper would just make matters worse. Paul emphasized this truth when he wrote to the Corinthian church as follows: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you..." (I Cor. 11:17-18). Since divisions are harmful to the point of dis­allowing the supper, a church must be in a position both to determine when they exist and to deal with them. A church can do neither of these where visitors are concerned.

We can see that the Lord's supper is not designed for us to express fellowship with other churches. What, then, do we express when we eat the supper? We express church communion with Christ.  Notice that the emphasis is upon "church" communion and not "church and visitors" communion. Doesn't this agree with Paul's instructions to the Corinthian church in I Cor. 10:16-17? He states: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." Is a church one body? From the definition of a church, this question is easily answered in the affirmative. This being true, the church (one bread, and one body) can commune with Christ, but what type of body do we envision when a church and visitors try to eat the supper? Obviously, we see more than one body, and, contrary to Paul's instructions, the visitors eat merely as detached individuals. They might as well attempt to serve themselves the supper in their homes since they are not part of the communing body (the church). Since the supper is a church ordinance, every participant must observe it as such; however, visitors are incapable of observing it as a church ordinance. They neither are assembled with their own church nor are they part of the communing church (the many who "are one bread, and one body" and who "are all partakers of that one bread"), and by extending them an invitation, the church only encourages and participates in their error.   

4. Hurt Feelings

Some people feel that we might hurt someone's feelings if we don't invite visitors to the supper. Others say that their own feelings would be hurt if a church which they were visiting served the supper and didn't invite them to eat. Again, there appears to be no Biblical support given for this position.

If a person's feelings are hurt by such a practice, his reaction should be predicated upon the church's violation of his Scriptural right to eat with it. Does the Bible give any­one such a right? On the contrary, wouldn't he and all Baptists admit that a church definitely has a right to limit the supper to its own members? If so, an interesting conclusion results: a Baptist gets his feelings hurt because a church exercises a God-given right! In addition, if proponents are correct in their viewpoint, shouldn't we be concerned about the feelings of all visitors regardless of their denominational affiliation? Many protestant organizations observe an open communion, and their members probably don't understand why Baptists will not invite them to the supper. Very likely their feelings are hurt by this practice, but we still don't invite them. We know that such feelings must take a subordinate position in matters which involve principle.

Obviously, such a practice is not designed to intentionally hurt the feelings of anyone, Baptist or otherwise. We do not intentionally hurt a sinner's feelings when we tell him that he is lost, sinful, helpless, and in need of a savior; however, the truth, expressed in love, is the only thing that will do him any good. Many organizations espouse a modern-day social gospel which does nothing for a sinner except to make him twofold more a child of Satan than he was before being induced by it. Will we compromise the truth concerning the supper in order to avoid hurting a per­son's feelings, even at the cost of disobeying the Lord’s instructions and separating ourselves from His blessings? In John 8:32, Jesus said, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Sometimes the truth hurts, yet it is still good for us. Can we teach others the truth about the supper while we engage in an improper adminis­tration of it?

5. Commune with Friends and/or Relatives

Some individuals have said, "If we don't invite visitors, I couldn't eat with my mother, or my dad, or my brother, or my friends, etc." The Bible doesn't teach that we must or should eat with them, but the statement pulls at our heart­strings so much that we might be inclined to overlook what the Bible does teach. Let's analyze this situation from a logical and practical standpoint.

In our early lives, many of us held membership in the same church to which our parents and other family members belonged. We were accustomed to sharing ordinary church relations with them, such as eating the Lord's supper, vot­ing in business meetings, etc. Later in life, according to His own reasons, God led some of us to unite with another church where we could share these relations with a different band of people. We might not have chosen to leave the church of our relatives, but God wanted it that way. If He really was in the matter, can't we truly say that we have been well blessed for the move?

Now from the natural (earthly) standpoint, we might still have a desire to share the former church relations with our relatives; however, God, in exercising His infallible wisdom and foresight, has provided us a new church family with whom we can share these relations. As we recognize that this is a great thing which He has done for us, we should regard it as sufficient. Our kinship in the church is based upon a spiritual relationship, and we know that God places greater value upon spiritual matters than He does those having natural origins. Since He was pleased to set us in our present church (I Cor. 12:18), our attachment, our devotion, our labors, our support, our vote, and, yes, our communion now belong with it. From the spiritual (heav­enly) standpoint, therefore, we should have no desire to commune with our relatives, any more than we should de­sire to vote with them, unless they share membership with us in the same church. When our service to God is under consideration, we should not be influenced by any of our natural inclinations and attachments.

6. Some Pastors and Missionaries Rarely Could Commune

Since some pastors never unite with the churches they serve, and since missionaries rarely meet with their own churches, some people think that the invitation of visitors is permissible to allow for such conditions. This seems to be a good argument, but, again, where is the Scriptural support for it?

There are some reasonable solutions to these conditions. A pastor could unite with the church where he attends all the time because he rarely attends the church where he holds membership, or he could attend his church on those infrequent occasions when the supper is served. Additionally, a church could ordain one of its own preachers to serve as pastor, as did the early churches (Tit. 1:5). The case of a missionary is somewhat different, but pos­sibly he could attend his church on some occasions when the supper is served. More importantly, there is no commandment regarding the frequency of observing the supper. Perhaps God has called the missionary to a field where no church exists, and he might have to labor for years without having an opportunity to eat the supper. Even if there were a church nearby, shouldn't he obey God and do the work to which he has been called rather than to engage in an act which has no Scriptural foundation? "...Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams" (I Sam. 15:22).  

7. Tradition

Because some churches have observed this practice for such a long time, proponents are inclined to view it as traditional and, therefore, acceptable. It is true that many churches have observed the practice for many years, but does that necessarily make it right? It is also true that many other churches have not observed the practice. In many areas of our country, numerous churches, pastors, and writers have condemned the practice as being unscriptural. In any event, if the practice is truly traditional, it should be a practice that began with the New Testament churches. The burden of proof lies with the proponents, and even though many individuals have searched for such proof, none has been found that will stand up under investigation. Even if this practice could be traced back a thousand years, we should not accept it as valid without solid Scriptural support.

We could address other topics which might seem to provide support for the invitation of visitors, but an analysis of their validity only produces conclusions similar to those already given: basically, proponents supply no Scriptural support for them, while, conversely, there are Scriptural explanations which support the opposite viewpoint. Rather than to continue with an analysis which produces similar conclusions, let's begin an examination of the church-only viewpoint.

 
THE CHURCH-ONLY VIEWPOINT

1. A Church Is One Body

"For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another" (Rom. 12:4-5). "But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him" (I Cor. 12:18). The Apostle Paul here draws an analogy between the human body and the church. Just as a human body has various members which together make it complete and functional, a church likewise has various members which together make it complete and functional. We should not overlook a key point in verse eighteen which is that God decided how the body should be constructed, a fact which applied equally to both the human and church bodies. We cannot properly serve God in a church unless God Him­self has approved of our membership being there.

Being led of God cannot be overemphasized. One member might be an "eye" in his church, another member, a "hand," another, a "foot," etc. Now imagine for a moment the abnormal sight of a human body having three hands or three feet. Isn't that the kind of picture we visualize when a church and outsiders presume to join themselves together in observance of the Lord's supper? Again, speaking to the Corinthian church, Paul said, "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular" (I Cor. 12:27). As one body, the members can observe the supper (I Cor. 10:16-17), but when one body (a church) attempts to join with pieces of other bodies (visitors) to perform this work, the result is an abnormal sight indeed. Baptists believe and teach that each church is one complete body which is well equipped to carry out all of its assigned duties. Can there be any doubt that Paul's instructions applied to the Corinthians as a church (a body) and not to any visitors who might have been attending their services?

2. A Church Must Refuse the Supper to Those Who Are Unqualified

Before a church attempts to eat the Lord's supper, it should be in a well-disciplined condition. Apparently, some people believe that a self-examination is all that is necessary for a person to be qualified to eat the supper, but Paul emphasized to the Corinthians that the church also must be satisfied with the qualifications of each person coming to the supper. He stressed the importance of both self-discipline and church discipline. He discussed self-discipline, or self-examination, in I Cor. 11: 27-29 where he cautioned each member, on penalty of damnation (judgment), to observe the supper in the correct manner and for the right purpose. In chapter five of the same book, Paul stressed the subject of church discipline.

Church discipline, as we know, is designed first and foremost to restore an erring member (Gal. 6:1); however, if the member rejects the church's restoration efforts and chooses rather to continue in his wrongdoing, then a critical step must be taken for the benefit of both the erring member and the church. Notice Paul's instructions to the Corinthian church (I Cor., Ch. 5): "Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened." He also told them "not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no not to eat." Finally he wrote: "Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person."

It is apparent that a church is responsible for knowing the moral condition of each member, and if such is found lacking, appropriate disciplinary action should be taken. We should bear in mind that this action was not optional for the Corinthians, and neither is it optional for us. Each prospective communicant must be subject to the scrutiny of the church which serves the supper, but a church may scrutinize only its own members (I Cor. 5:12); consequently, a church which invites outsiders to commune must violate and make void a commandment from God. People are served who have not, and may not, come under the scrutiny of the church. Contrary to God's instruction, how­ever, the church does in reality judge them. By permitting them to commune, the church automatically judges them as being qualified because the church is charged with the responsibility of final judgment in the matter. The church might shun that responsibility; nevertheless, God holds the church accountable for it. Possibly these people are qualified to commune in their own churches, but that has no bearing on the issue. What does matter is our willingness to abide by the instructions given by God.

By way of illustration, let's consider a problem that not only could, but does, occur. You probably know someone who has not been disciplined by his church even though there are common reports of his drunkenness, or fornication, or covetousness, etc. If he is visiting your church when the supper is served and an invitation to visitors is extended, he must be included in the invitation. If he accepts, as he very well might, your church then faces a real dilemma.

Whatever you do in this situation would be wrong: God commands that you neither keep company with nor eat with such an immoral person, yet the church would be guilty of judging an outsider by selectively refusing to serve him. Certainly, you don't want to disobey God's com­mandment, but what other choice do you have? Can God be pleased with such a situation? Surely, He would not approve of your eating with sinful, unqualified outsiders while at the same time He condemns your eating with those of like character who are members of your own church. Someone might say that such an individual should know better than to accept the invitation, but even so, your church cannot excuse its disobedience by trying to shift all the blame to him. Considering the circumstances, however, can we really expect him to know any better or to act any differently? He is engaged in a life of sin, yet his church has not disciplined him for it. Furthermore, "Every way of a man is right in his own eyes..." (Prov. 21:2), and being left entirely to his own judgment, he might conclude that he is qualified. Isn't it more reasonable to say that your church should avoid creating this situation? God has given His churches a very sound and practical means of avoiding this predicament, and that is to refrain from the practice of inviting visitors in the first place. This practice always subjects a church to potentially unsolvable problems because the church has no authority over outsiders. On the other hand, a church always has a Scriptural means of solving its own in-house problems.

The matter of self-discipline, or self-examination, was introduced earlier, but let's take a closer look at it: "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup" (I Cor. 11:28). The context of Paul's address in this chapter leaves little doubt that the proper conduct of the church at Corinth was under consideration, and we would expect every other church to abide by the same instructions. There is every reason to believe that the man who was to "examine himself" was a member of the church at Corinth. Nothing suggests that just any person who might have been present at one of their services was to so examine himself and eat the supper. If that were the only consideration, an unbaptized person or a member of some other denomination might judge himself to be qualified and thus eat the supper; in fact, this very thing happens in churches which make a practice of inviting visitors. Even when the invitation specifies members of churches of like faith and order, some people either don't understand it or they ignore it. Doesn't God's displeasure abide upon a church which engages in such a permissive practice, especially when He has provided the means to avoid it? The Lord hasn't left His churches unequipped to conduct their own affairs.

Finally, let's observe what Buell H. Kazee said about church discipline as it relates to the Lord's supper: "When we accept baptism from a church, we belong to that church. We are under its guidance and care. Not only is our approval for baptism given by that church, but the approval also of our daily walk is its responsibility. If we are out of fellowship with our church, we have no right to participate in the Lord's supper with it until our fellowship has been restored. The only church which could be in a position to know our spiritual status is the one to which we belong. Logically, we could not go to another church and expect it to decide whether or not we are eligible to take the Lord's supper. While our fraternal relationship may extend to all Baptists, yea, even to all children of God, our covenant relationship in the gospel proclamation is with the church of which we are members. This points up more sharply than any other view the real meaning of the ordinances. Baptism has to do with our relationship with Christ and His church; the Lord's supper has to do with fellowship with them.  The earthly overseership of both ordinances therefore becomes the responsibility of the church with which we are united" (The Church and the Ordinances, p. 125).

3. True Worship Vs. Vain Worship

Jesus said, "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9). Is the practice of inviting visitors to eat the supper based upon a commandment of God or a commandment of men? If there is such a commandment of God, where is it to be found in the Bible? As Baptists, we believe in proving things by the Bible, and we claim that it is our only rule of faith and practice. We frequently hear Biblical sermons on salvation by grace through faith, believer's baptism, church perpetuity, the total depravity of man, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, baptism as being immersion in water, a church as being local rather than universal, the Lord's supper as being a church ordinance, etc.; but how often do we hear sermons on the invitation of visitors to the Lord's supper?

My memory spans a period of more than thirty-five years, and during that time I have been privileged to hear numerous preachers and sermon topics. Throughout this period, however, I can recall hearing only one sermon which was designed to give support to this practice. The support was concentrated in two areas: 1. The fact that some of the respected older preachers believed in the practice. 2. Acts 20 (supposed church at Troas, which has been addressed under another topic and, I trust, sufficiently discounted). As much as we might respect a preacher who teaches this, these two things don't provide the type of Biblical proof to which Baptists are accustomed.

If the practice is Scriptural, shouldn't we occasionally hear sound sermons to support it along with the other Baptist (Bible) doctrines previously mentioned? Instead, when the supper is served, the pastor usually is resigned to saying something like this: "This church invites visitors from churches of like faith and order to eat the supper with us." Isn't this an admission that the church is "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" which Christ condemns as vain worship? (Remember from the definition of a church that it is prohibited from performing duties which were not assigned to it.) By its action, the church has taken upon itself legislative powers when, in reality, it is only an executive body. The statement also implies that other churches might choose not to invite visitors, but is Christ the author of any such confusion? He has given us our rules of conduct in the church, and no church has any authority to legislate new rules.

We are not dealing with a small matter concerning which each church is permitted to exercise its own discretion, but we are dealing with a divinely-appointed memorial by which we symbolically present the gospel. There is, of course, only one gospel. To preserve its purity and to maintain consistency in the message which our churches present, we should observe the ordinances as consistently and as strictly as possible. If each church legislates different rules regarding their proper observance, our expression of the gospel message becomes weakened.

4. Counters Tendency Toward Universalism

The Biblical concept of the church is that of a "local" body rather than a universal one. New Testament churches were identified by their locality, such as the church in Smyrna, the church in Sardis, etc. Since a church is a local body, doesn't a church ordinance belong only to the local body? If outsiders are included with members in observing the supper (it being a "local" church ordinance), doesn't such a mixture tend toward universalism? What other conclusion can there be, and how can unsaved people, weak members, those from other denominations, or anyone else be convinced otherwise? They cannot be convinced that we teach the practice from the Bible, and it gives them a reason to doubt our sincerity about other matters. Try to convince them that the practice is Scriptural, and they will quickly ask why some of our sister churches observe the opposite prac­tice and claim it to be Scriptural.

We can explain some variations in activities which are not doctrinal in nature (frequency of business meetings, the hour to meet together for worship, which missionaries to support, etc.), but we cannot explain wide variations in activities which are documented in the Bible and which are vital to our well being. Since the ordinances are doctrinal in nature, inconsistencies in their administration give rise to uncertainties for both saint and sinner. The Lord's supper is either a church ordinance or a denomination ordinance it cannot be both.

5. Church Covenant: A Special Relationship

Many churches have adopted a covenant which contains the following statements: "We do now most solemnly and joyfully enter into covenant with one another as one body in Christ. We engage to promote its prosperity and spiritu­ality; to sustain its worship, ordinances, discipline, and doc­trines..." I Cor. 12:18 states: "But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him." It has already been emphasized that a church is one body, complete in itself, which is fully capable of carrying out all phases of the Lord's work as outlined in the Scriptures. The one body's "members in particular" (I Cor. 12: 27) enjoy a special relationship to each other which other people cannot share unless God is pleased to set them in the body.

Since this special relationship exists in a church, let's examine some of its natural attributes. No doubt, all Baptists would agree that a church can Scripturally eat the supper without inviting visitors; however, many would deny that it can do so when visitors participate. For those who support the practice of inviting visitors, please answer the following questions: Are you concerned more about the feelings of visitors than you are about the feelings of members of your own body (your church)? Should you force members of your body to do something which they believe to be wrong, especially when you cannot prove your position by the Bible? Wouldn't your members have a much more valid reason to have hurt feelings than would visitors? Haven't you joined with your members in a special cove­nant relationship to care for them, encourage them, and to promote their welfare? Can you fulfill the spirit of this covenant by being concerned less about their feelings than about the feelings of occasional visitors? Bear in mind that visitors are not denied the supper entirely because they can eat it with their own church. Their attendance predominantly should be with their own church, and especially so when it serves the supper. If God has placed them in their church, that is where He wants them to attend and commune. If God has not placed them in their church, they need to move their membership to the church of His choice.

Previously, the idea was presented that an abnormal body is produced when pieces of other churches try to attach themselves, though briefly, to another church and eat the supper. In contrast, just imagine God's stamp of approval upon a church which comes together in unity and thus eats. After the pastor refreshes their memories concerning the Lord's death and the purpose of the supper, the members, prior to eating, might gather in the altar place for prayer, confessions of faults, expressions of love, testimonies of praise, and a fellowship handshake. The supper then would take on a deeper meaning, and everyone would sense that the church truly is one body which is closely united in fellowship and love. Can't we sense God's approval of this type of service in contrast to His disapproval of one involving a mixture of bodies? Even the elements which are used for the supper emphasize as much. The one bread (there really should be only one loaf to be broken and served) symbolizes one body, but a mixture of bodies (churches) detracts from this symbolism.

Perhaps the symbolism contained in the "one bread" needs special emphasis because it has a special significance with respect to a church's covenant relationship. Unquestionably, Christ's body is symbolized by the one bread (one loaf), but Paul tells us that a church also is symbolized by one bread: "For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread" (I Cor. 10:17). A symbol has virtually no meaning if it fails to represent the real substance. Appropriately, the body of Christ is represented by unleavened bread, the components of which are bonded together in the form of one individual loaf. To retain the symbolism contained therein, those who partake of this one loaf must also be unleavened (I Cor. 5:6-8) and bonded together in the form of one individual church. The symbolism is invalidated by any other mixture of participants because the symbol would be inconsistent with the thing being symbolized. Paul's statement has little significance unless the "one bread" truly is one—one loaf and one church.

J. R. Graves, who was a Baptist preacher, author, and editor, stated his concept of this symbolism in the following axiom: "The rite is vitiated and null when the thing symbolized does not exist. Two things are symbolized when a church celebrates the Supper: 1. That a spiritual relationship exists between the participants and Christ, effected through his sacrificial death and atonement. 2. That visible church relations exist between all those who jointly partake of the 'one loaf;' that though many individual Chris­tians, yet all constitute one organic unity -'one body'- one particular church. ...We conclude, therefore, that the Supper can be celebrated only as a church ordinance -i.e., by a particular church; and, as such, a church can not invite other than her own members to a joint Communion, without vitiating the symbolism of the one loaf, since the thing sig­nified would not exist—viz., church relationship of all the communicants" (J. R. Graves, What Is It To Eat and Drink Unworthily? [Texarkana: Baptist Sunday School Commit­tee, 1928], pp. 34-35).

The same rationale is applied to the symbolism contained in baptism. We would never consider sprinkling water over a person in order to baptize him because the symbol would be inconsistent with the real substance; in fact, we consider such action to be unscriptural and, therefore, invalid. Baptism symbolizes both the burial of one's old, sinful nature and the resurrection of his new, purified nature, and to properly illustrate this fact, candidates are buried in, and raised from, a watery grave. No such concept can be expressed by merely sprinkling a few drops of water on a candidate's head. If it could, we equally could sprinkle a little dirt over a dead person and call such action a burial! No, the symbol must be consistent with the thing being symbolized, else it loses its validity.  The symbolism of the one bread also loses its validity when members of more than one church partake of the one loaf, and we should consider such mixed communion to be unscriptural in the same sense that we consider sprinkling for baptism to be unscriptural.  In both cases, the same principle is involved.  The symbolism is retained, and the special covenant relationship is properly expressed, when a church comes together as “one bread, and one body” to partake “of that one bread.”

GENERAL COMMENTS

Hopefully the proposition before us has been answered, but a few general comments might provide further clarification.

The opposing viewpoints can be separated only by the Bible, and we must decide which one harmonizes with it. Traditions are hard to break, but when they clash with Biblical harmony, they should be discarded. Why the practice of inviting visitors ever had a beginning has not been addressed because such an investigation would have no bearing on our analysis unless, after all, the practice does have a Scriptural foundation. If it has such a foundation, someone would render our churches a valuable service by bringing it to light.

Even with the foregoing analysis, someone might yet say, "The Bible doesn't specifically state that we cannot invite visitors," or "The Bible doesn't specifically state that the supper is restricted only to a church's members." We are aware, of course, that Baptist interpretation reflects a number of conclusions which are not specifically stated in the Bible. For example, no reference specifically states that baptism is a prerequisite of church membership, but we conclude that it is. Additionally, no reference specifically states that Christ established His church during His personal ministry on earth, but ample evidence convinces us that He did. Numerous examples of this nature could be listed, but it becomes obvious that many of our beliefs and practices are the result of deductive reasoning. Through prayerful study and the Holy Spirit's enlightenment, many Biblical truths are revealed which otherwise would remain hidden. "The things of the Spirit of God...are spiritually discerned" (I Cor. 2:14).

Our conclusions must reflect harmony with all of the Scriptures, and where harmony does not exist, we must reexamine our interpretation. Possibly there are some vague Scriptures which could be interpreted to support one viewpoint or the other, but vague Scriptures must always yield to those which give more light. Upon examination of the present question, isn't that exactly what we face? There are no Scriptures which emphatically specify one practice over the other, yet we are not left without direction. When vague Scriptures are illuminated by those which Baptists have long understood, and when deductive reasoning is applied to them, don't we find harmony with the church-only viewpoint in contrast to disharmony with the opposing viewpoint? It is interesting to observe that the opposing viewpoint basically stands on a proof from silence. Rather than to prove it by a positive interpretation of the Bible, its supporters really require others to disprove it. Isn't this technique contrary to the standard rules of proof?

In our service to God, the stakes are always high. When we have done those things commanded by God, we win His approval and enjoy His many wonderful blessings.  (Of course, we don't deserve these blessings because we have done only that which was our duty to do [Luke 17:10].) When we make mistakes and do things contrary to God's will, we suffer His disapproval and enjoy fewer of His blessings; however, He doesn't cast us aside because He understands our weaknesses. In spite of our sins, He still loves us and blesses us in many ways; however, shouldn't we strive to win His approval in order to enjoy more of His blessings? He always approves right, but He never approves wrong. He is never pleased when we rebel against His established order.

Certainly, God still blesses churches which invite visitors to eat the Lord's supper, but such blessings are no sure sign of His approval of the practice. If the practice is contrary to His established order, wouldn't He have poured out more blessings upon those churches had they not engaged in it? He might have blessed the members with more love for each other, more zeal for the cause, more wisdom, more influence upon unsaved people, a more bountiful harvest, etc. His resources are unlimited, and His blessings are exhibited in a multitude of ways, but He does honor His promise to bless those who keep His commandments: "...Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord, that delighteth greatly in his commandments" (Ps. 112:1). For us to decide how God would bless a church would place restrictions upon Him, but we can rest assured that He keeps His promises.

CONCLUSION

A rather large book would be required to fully analyze all of the topics which are related to this subject. My objective has been to present a few of these topics accompanied by an analysis of their harmony with the Bible. I have found much harmony with the church-only viewpoint, but I have found none at all with the opposing viewpoint. I reach the same conclusion from an analysis of other topics which have not been presented.

Doing what is right should cause no strife between us. Instead, our love and respect for the church should increase because we would demonstrate greater love and respect for Christ and His commandments. Christ "...loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or  wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish" (Eph. 5:25-27). Sanctifying and cleansing are accomplished through the Word as it is accompanied by the Holy Spirit, but they are closely related to the proper administration of both baptism and the Lord's supper. By their proper administration, the church keeps itself sound and properly disciplined. Christ has given the church these two ordinances, and they are special gifts to and for the church. One church has just as much authority to administer baptism to another church's candidate as it does to administer the Lord's supper to another church's member. There is no authority in either case.

Does taking this position cast any reflection upon any visitors? There is nothing to suggest that it does, and certainly there is no intention of doing so. We cast no reflection upon visitors when we deny them the right to vote in our business meetings, and this action is no different. Church business and church liberties are left exactly where they belong, and that is with each individual church.

If our churches would exercise more consistency in the administration of the ordinances, I sincerely believe that individual members would have greater respect for the church, the church would have greater influence upon the world, and God would provide greater blessings to us in general. So far as I know, there is consistency among our churches respecting the administration of baptism, but this is not so with respect to the Lord's Supper. Since the fundamentals of the gospel are presented in the ordinances, we need consistency in the way both ordinances are admin­istered. Among Baptists, many believe that a church should invite visitors to the supper while many others believe that to do so is clearly unscriptural; however, all Baptists, I presume, agree that a church can Scripturally eat the supper without the participation of visitors. This is where our consistency lies, and to the best of my understanding, the church-only viewpoint is the only one which has a sound Biblical foundation. Since the Bible "...is given by inspiration of God" (II Tim. 3:16), it must ever stand as our only rule of faith and practice. We should not be merely willing to abide by its precepts and examples, but, with joy, we should have a great desire to do so.

I trust that the Lord's richest blessings will rest upon all of His churches. Without Him we can do nothing (John 15:5).