When I began to attend a Landmark Baptist Church, the first doctrinal difference that I encountered was "closed communion." Like everyone else in our area, I blindly accepted "open communion" to be both valid and scriptural. After all, there was no reason to believe anything else. Then came the night that Liberty Baptist Church took communion and I wasn't offered the elements. Even though I thought it strange, it really didn't upset me a whole lot. The preacher explained the church's position very well and no one looked at me weird. However, I still didn't understand why any church would want to limit the Lords Supper to members of their local congregation and shut everyone else out. Shortly afterward, I approached the Pastor about it and he very carefully told me that I shouldn't feel left out or different because I was passed over. It was the way that Landmark Baptists believed and the only scriptural way to observe the ordinance. He went on to say that when he attends other Landmark churches, the elements aren't offered to him either. Now to tell you the truth, almost everyone outside of Landmark circles, who have found themselves in this situation don't exactly feel that way and neither did I.

There's a terrible disappointment in being passed over when you are used to seeing only the unregenerate denied. For someone to say that communion was offered only to members of the local New Testament church was completely foreign to me and even seemed a little cultist to me at the time. Immediately I knew that this was an issue that I had to settle for myself. If Closed communion was right , then I had a lot of other things wrong as well. The next few months found me studying the issue and I was intrigued at what I discovered. The end result of my study brought me to the conclusion that the Landmarkers were right and "open communion" was wrong. I had been taught wrong and anyone else who had been taught this needed to be showed the truth. The results of my study can be found in this pamphlet and it is my sincere hope that it will help others who have found themselves in the same situation to study it with an open mind.

Most of the information we need on this subject is found in I and II Corinthians. The Corinthian church is an example of a church that seemed to be doing everything wrong that could be done when it came to observance of the Lord's Supper. Paul attempts to correct their errors in his second letter to them.

Instructions concerning the Lord's Supper are only for those who have been born again.

As of this writing, I personally don't know of any church that would allow an unbeliever to partake of the Lord's Supper. The problems with the ordinance do not lie with this issue, since almost all churches admit that a person can have no connection with Jesus Christ unless he is a born-again believer in Him. However, I have seen some Protestants offer communion without giving any instructions to those in attendance placing them in great jeopardy.

Paul first discusses the Lord's Supper in general, and then begins to point out, beginning in verse 17, the Corinthians' irregularities in their practice of it.

Having praised them in the beginning of the letter for some things, he now says "I praise you not."

1 Corinthians 11:17

When you come together" in the church "it is not for better but for the worse." Somehow spirituality and harmony had given way to division and disorder.

"When ye come together in the church." It is a forgone conclusion that they are to take the supper "together" and "in the church". The implication is that they are to assemble themselves together in their church, not together with a group from a church across the street or down the road. Everything here deals with the church at Corinth. There were only Corinthian church members at Corinth and they were the ones sanctified in Jesus.

Paul continues, "I hear that there be divisions among you." The word "division" here means a "split" -- a division that has caused discord. There must be unity in the church before you have a communion service. When you come together! is the manner in which you come and should also be the attitude you come with. Unity is a necessary element for proper partaking of the church of the Lord's Supper.

In plain words, pointing out the heretics made the true believers shine. Sometimes we need bad in order to see the good more clearly -- i.e., a comparison to show who is and who is not a friend of God. Some folks can't see the forest for the trees and need a bare spot to reveal them. In this sense, heresies were not a bad thing, but a good thing, for the church.

Paul's instruction continues: "When you come together therefore into one place..." Again, Paul speaks of them taking the supper "together" and in a single location. The Corinthians may or may not have had their own building, but they certainly did have a predesignated meeting place for worship. Today the "one place" of most churches is their church building, or some building in which they regularly meet for worship.

"This is not to eat the Lord's Supper." Even though they came together to worship God and to partake of the Lord's Supper, it could not be the Lord's, because its was not being observed the way God intended.

How is this possible? They came together, they called it the "Lord's Supper," yet Paul says they weren't observing the real thing. What was wrong?

1 Corinthians 11:23

The important point here is that it was given to Paul to give to the church. It was never intended for individuals to have that responsibility. The first communion was observed by Christ with the eleven disciples ( Judas having departed to betray Christ didn't partake of the Supper.) If the ordinance had been given to them individually, it would have went to the grave with those to whom it was given. It could be said that the disciples passed it on to others, but nowhere do we see it passed on to anyone else. If they did, there wouldn't have been any reason to have given it to Paul to pass on. The fact is, Jesus wanted it delivered to the church because the church would never go out of existence.

Matthew 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."

This is why Paul rebuked the church and not individuals. The Lord's Supper is a church ordinance not an individual ordinance. The Lord's church is responsible for maintaining its purity not an individual who claims to be the church by means of their salvation.

The ordinance was to be observed "till He [Christ] come" (I Cor. 11:26). This would not be possible for a single individual, but only for the institution of the church, which will exist throughout the ages. Men die, but the church as an institution will last forever.

God's instructions to man are always specific and for good reason.

When God told Noah to make an ark, he gave specific instructions (Gen. 6:14). It was to be made of gopher wood. Suppose Noah decided to make it out of pine instead. Would that had been acceptable? It was to have one window in it. Suppose Noah's wife talked him into putting in a picture window so she could watch it rain. Then would the ark had withstood the deluge?

A church can administer the Supper as often as they like, two or three times a day if they want, but if the supper is only taken one time in a day, the proper time to take it would be at supper time, the evening meal.

The elements of Communion are an important part of the service. Everything has its own significance bringing "to remembrance" certain aspects of Christ's atoning death.

The Bread therefore has significance as to its ingredients and manner of serving.

The Bread referred to here is the bread Jesus took the same night he was betrayed. It follows that the bread of the Lord's Supper should be of the same kind. According to Scripture, Christ and his disciples were observing the Passover. The bread on the table would have been "unleavened" bread.

Luke 22:1

Luke 22:7

"And Moses said unto the people, Remember this day, in which ye came out from Egypt, out of the house of bondage; for by strength of hand the LORD brought you out from this place: there shall no leavened bread be eaten."

It also symbolizes the church as the only institution made pure enough to administer the Lord's Supper. This is why the church must "purge out" the old leaven and be a new lump.

The church is to be holy, which by extension means that her members must be holy as well. They can not have the leaven of wickedness.

Proverbs 23:31-32 " Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.  At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder."

Only 100% grape juice free of any preservatives or other additives should be used.

What does it mean to eat and drink damnation to oneself? It must be very serious: "For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep," (verse 30) meaning the sleep of death. With such a harsh sentence for taking the Lord's Supper "unworthily," we should be anxious to discover what they were doing that was so wrong it cost them their lives.

1 Corinthians 11:29 " For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. "

Paul goes on to say in I Corinthians 11:28: "But let a man examine himself." In preparation for the Lord's Supper, a man needs to search his heart to see where he stands with the Lord. He should ask himself some very basic questions. Am I born again?

John 1:12: "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:"

If you haven't received Christ as your personal Savior, you are not even in the family of God, not to mention the Church of Jesus Christ. Upon examination a man should be able to say, "I am a Christian." I John 5:12 "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."

Am I taking this Supper for the right reasons? The Supper cannot save your soul, and if you come expecting your sins to be absolved, you have come for the wrong reason. You must be saved before you come to the Lord's table. If you come just to be seen, or for any other reason than to remember the Savior's death, you are taking it "unworthily."

Have I any hidden sins such as in my thought life? As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.

"For if we judge ourselves, we should not be judged". This line of thinking should extend to all that we are -- our emotions, intellect and will. It should include anything that reflects on our character as a Christian, because our character is a direct reflection of the church as the body of Christ. This examination is a time when we need to look at our accounts in the sight of God. It is only after you grasp how the Lord's Supper really relates to your personal relationship to the Lord and his body that you can realize the seriousness and sadness of your sin. If upon our self-examination we discern our sinfulness and exercise honesty as to our motives and manner in taking the Supper, "we should not be judged." If we took stock of our own condition, and made adjustment accordingly, God (or the church) would not have to judge us. When we go so far away from God's will that He has to reach down personally and judge us, "we are chastened of the Lord," that is, we are disciplined, corrected, taught a lesson, so that we will not have to endure the final judgment and wrath that will descend upon the world, which will end in their destruction.

Because of this need for self-examination, the congregation should have a time of prayer before they partake. After this examination of self "so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup."

I John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

Is there any reason why a man from First Baptist Church cannot go down one night to visit the folks at Second Baptist Church and take the Supper with them? Most churches nowadays answer "No" to this question, never realizing the ramifications of their answer. So many myths and misconceptions have grown up around the Supper that the average church member never questions the full implications of that question. Once again, God fixes certain stipulations as to who is eligible to take the Supper. It is these stipulations that figure into a church's decision to limit the Supper to only its own members who are in good standing.

Paul lists six sins that, if observed in any member of the congregation, would prohibit his being invited to the Supper. Paul's previous instruction had limited their association with fornicators only, "but now" he includes five more categories of sinners: If a man can be called a brother [i.e., a Christian] and he is a fornicator, covetous, an idolater, a railer, a drunkard or an extortioner, "with such a one - no not to eat." Let's first briefly look at the meanings of these six things before we go on.

1) illicit sexual intercourse

1) one eager to have more, esp. what belongs to others

2) greedy of gain, covetous

1) a worshipper of false gods, a idolater

1a) used of any one even Christian, participant in any way in the

worship of the heathen, esp. one who attends their sacrificial

feasts and eats of the remains of offered victims

2) a covetous man as a worshipper of Mammon

 4. Railer

From loidos (mischief); AV - railer 1, reviler 1; 2

1) a railer, reviler

1) drunken, intoxicated

1) rapacious, ravenous

2) a extortioner, a robber

This verse means that we are "not to eat" the Lord's Supper with those we know are involved in these sins. How can we partake of the bread and fruit of the vine which symbolizes the body and blood of our Lord knowing that there is those among us mocking the feast by their unholiness. If we allow every person who comes through the church door who says he is a Christian to take the Lord's Supper with us, how can we possibly know that he is not one of those mentioned in verse 11? Furthermore, if we did know him, we would have no authority to discipline a member of another church. We are responsible to judge those within our local assembly. not the members of churches outside of our congregation.

The crux of the entire matter lies in allowing such a man to continue to be a member of the church when he has committed such gross sins. Discipline within the body is tied directly to precluding any rank sinner from taking the Supper of Jesus which represents his holy body and blood. This safeguard protects the church from God's judgment (as when he killed some of the Corinthian members) and requires the church to be diligent in policing itself by weeding out those who refuse to conform to God's will. When we think of all the churches whose rolls are full of the names of adulterers, alcoholics, people who are badmouthing "that church down there", etc., it should make a chill go up our spines when we realize that on any given Sunday evening they could walk in and take the Supper with the rest of the body. Are you ready for you or your church to be judged as God judged the Corinthian church for their indifferent attitude towards sin?

What then is the proper procedure in a case like this? Paul spells it out plainly: "But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person."

I Cor. 5:13 Paul had already dealt with the problem of allowing sin to go unchecked in the church in Chapter 5. "It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you." The instance there was of a man who was either living with or had married his father's wife (presumably his stepmother). Not only had the Corinthians allowed the man to continue without rebuke, they were "puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you." (I Cor. 5:2)

The Corinthian church ignored their responsibility to discipline this man who was living in open sin. Consequently, because of their slothfulness concerning his sin, the man had as much right to partake of the Supper as the rest of the church. How could he be denied the Supper if the church had been a party to endorsing his sin by their lack of disapproval? They were in essence, as guilty and unworthy to partake of the Lord's Supper as he was.

Because of their neglect of such an important matter, Paul again exhorts them to exercise church discipline over the sinner by excluding him from fellowship. This had the effect of turning him over to Satan. What a scary thought, to be delivered by the church to the devil himself because we will not restrain ourselves from sin. But the purpose is clear: "Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?" I Cor. 5:6. One bad apple can spoil the whole barrel! A pinch of leaven (yeast) permeates the entire batch of dough, and the whole loaf rises! Verse 7: "Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:"

The church is to purge out the old leaven (sin) before it corrupts the whole lump (church). There is a high price to be paid by a church which turns its back on its God-given responsibility to discipline members. It can and does upset the proverbial apple cart. A church hasn't a choice in the matter, the can either discipline the offenders or share the Lord's Supper with them. Part of our responsibility as church members is to be accountable to each other. This restrains us from becoming involved in the very sins Paul lists above.

1 Corinthians 5:7-8

Your Local New Testament church has the responsibility to administer it properly. It is to be extended only to members in good standing and is never to be extended beyond the Local Assembly. If the pattern set down by Christ is not strictly adhered to, then "it is not the Lord's Supper" and it's meaning is annulled.