On my previous post concerning Article VII of the BF&M, an interesting question came to mind, “What percentage of SBC churches are practicing open communion?” Mind you, we don’t decide doctrine by statistical research, but ultimately a confession ought to represent the beliefs of those who adhere to the confession. In an effort to help Ed Stetzer and Lifeway Research, if they decide to take up this project, I offer different understandings of who should be allowed to fellowship at the Lord’s table. I do not regard these definitions as infallible and if Ed and the boys at Lifeway want to have a hearty laugh over this, I am glad to make their day.
Closed Communion - Only members in good standing within the church partaking of the supper may participate.
Strict Communion – Church members in good standing and transient believers who are members in good standing from churches of like “faith and order.” Like faith and order normally equates Baptist Churches.
Close Communion – Church members in good standing and believers in good standing at their church who have been baptized by immersion.
In these next two definitions, I have modified open communion from my previous post. As I have stated before, open communion is outside the bounds of the BF&M.
Partially Open Communion – Anyone is invited so long as they have been baptized according to the individual’s church tradition (immersion, sprinkling, or effusion).
Fully Open Communion – Baptism is not required as a prerequisite to participation in the Lord’s Supper. All that is required is a confession of trusting in Jesus’ death for their forgiveness of sins.
I don’t know if this will be of any help, but maybe this could be encouraging defining what we mean in our ongoing discussion concerning what Baptists believe.
Brother Robin,
If Lifeway takes this up, you guys should host a contest to see who gets closest to predicting the outcome of the poll. At the least it’ll keep a few pastors out of the casinos for a day or two ;^)
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Brother Robin,
Thanks for your perspectives on communion, it seems that you have placed much thought in this post. Having said that, allow me to ask a question. Why do you define fully open communion as others have defined open, but restricted?
It seems that fully open communion is usually observed by those that believe in some salvific grace received from communion. See here for one official understanding of fully open communion.
Blessings,
Tim
Bro. Robin,
Just a point of clarification. As Dr. Yarnell pointed out in his debate with Tom Ascol over the communion issue recently, being a Southern Baptist church does not mean that that congregation affirms the BF&M. I don’t know if I like this or not, but as it stands that’s how the cookie crumbles in the SBC, so doing this type of research would have to have the caveat that the churches surveyed also affirm the BF&M for it to act as a referendum on that document.
Thanks for the post.
-Todd
Tim
Probably because I am defining this from what a Baptist church would perceive as open. I would hope that a Baptist church would not see some salvific effect from partaking of the supper. From the research I have done, I have not found any Baptist promotion of that. If research was done it Should focus on Baptist churches.
Robin,
Since the latter two you have defined have historically been viewed by Baptists (not just SBC) as unbiblical, I think Tim makes a valid point. Though I too would hope as you do about Baptists not holding to any salvific element to the supper, how would we know unless it is asked?
While they are at it, I would want Lifeway to also include the various views on communion in the survey:
Is it a local church ordinance or can anyone “host” it apart from a gathering of the church?
What is the significance of the supper? Is it Memorial or Sacramental or something in between.
What about the elements? Consubstantiation? Transubstantiation? Real Presence of Christ? Bread and fruit of the vine are symbolic only?
I once thought I knew what Baptists (SBC) believed about the Lord’s table. We have affirmed it in three Confessional Statements, the last only eight years ago. So I would like the survey to be a broad one but specific in it’s questions. I would also like it to be a wide sampling (but only of SBC churches).
Blessings,
Ron P.
Our Church believes in close communion.
David
Robin,
This is a good idea. I would also support asking Lifeway to engage in such a poll. The results would be very interesting.
Regarding Article VII, it seems that a case could be made for either Closed or Strict Communion, depending on how you interpret it:
“[Baptism] is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.
The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.”
The second part of that says that the Lord’s Supper is for members of the church. The previous part says that baptism is necessary for membership. Would this not speak to a Closed position. Possibly, you could stretch it to a Strict position if you considered “the church” to be all Baptist churches. Or, if you considered the church to the Universal Church, I guess you could have another argument. Basically, it seems like each group could interpret this the way that they want to, but it seems like the words have a specific meaning so I doubt that they are open to all interpretations.
What do you guys think? Again, the poll is a great idea.
Alan,
I really cant see the BFM2K teaching closed communion. I dont see how you make that leap from the statement.
David
bin,
Tim has brought something to the “table” here that I would like to put forth among you guys and see what you think.
The United Methodist folks and others, including many of our Southern Baptist brothers seem to be be making an effort to say something in their practice at the Lord’s Table that they obviously think we are missing. In truth, some of us may be missing it. (I am not saying any here are)
Bear with me as I present it in short.
The Methodist folk give the following reason for the way they practice the observance of the Lord’s Table:
“The church is to consciously identify and seek out those who feel unwelcome, even excluded, from its congregations, and to invite them to become part of the body of Christ and join in its celebrations of Holy Communion.”
It is my opinion that they lean heavily upon the teaching related to agape love as described in 1 Corinthians 13 for their position.
And, in fact, it is true that right theology is no substitute for love. I think we all would agree with that. I think “most” people who frequent Baptist blogs would agree with that. I think most of “us” (the “us” who are now identified as BIs or the newly coined “Neo-Baptists”) would believe that.
I also think it is at this point many of us have differing opinions about who comes to the Lord’s Table and what constitutes love.
It seems that many brothers believe love as described in 1 Corinthians to be synonymous with the American cultural idea of “Christian love” which is often described in terms of nice feelings, warm affection and tolerance.
In having such a belief about Christian love their efforts to show the love of God and bring people into the Kingdom leads them to be convicted that “all” people must be accepted at the Lord’s Table “unconditionally” and without prior instruction as to who the observation of the Lord’s Supper was intended.
On the other hand, many of whom also believe right theology is no substitute for love see this love as involving something more than warm affection and tolerance for others.
We believe that true Christian love will always involve teaching people to be obedient to God’s Word above all else. We believe obedience is better than sacrifice. We believe obedience in necessary to agape love.
Warm affection and tolerance (biblical tolerance) is not sufficient to constitute Christian love. Christian love involves being obedient to the Word of God.
It is my opinion we have some differences here.
I will try to illustrate the difference, for me at least, in the following way:
I believe Dr. D. James Kennedy to have been one of our greatest Christian statesmen during the last 75 years. He was my favorite American preacher for years.
He was one of the nicest men I have ever met. He was my kind of culture warrior. He was my kind of Calvinist. He was my kind of evangelist. He was my kind of Christian. He was my kind of Presbyterian.
Yet, he was not my kind of Baptist. And therein lies the difference.
I am a confessional Baptist. I am a confessional Southern Baptist. I am such because I truly believe I can find no closer ecclesiastical theology to that of a biblical theology in the world as I know it.
It really is a matter of ecclesiology to me. And I think ecclesiology is important.
cb
Robin,
I don’t know how I lost part of your name.
That should have been Robin and not “bin”
cb
CB,
I thought that you were trying to contact Bin…as in Osama Bin Laden.
David
Vol,
Not me. I get in trouble every time I mention his name.:-)
cb
David,
I don’t think it teaches closed communion, but I think closed communion is an acceptable practice given what the BF&M says about it. Kind of like it doesn’t say anything outlawing Calvinism . . . oh wait, that’s another argument.
It’s unrealistic, but I think the best way to conduct this research is through observation rather than a survey methodology. As we have seen in membership reporting, many churches may report what they think they are supposed to say rather than what they really practice.
Another item I would like to see is how often the average SBC church observes the Lord’s Supper. I suspect it is so infrequent that conducting observational research would be very difficult.
I have trouble policing the whole thing in our culture. Would we call the role of those who are members in good standing? What list would you use to identify those in good standing?
Can you imagine the tone of that service?
Bill,
How often do you believe a church should observe the Lord’s Supper?
Also, I fear that many churches have no idea what they are supposed to say. This is due to a famine of teaching and preaching relating to a biblical ecclesiology.
Those are just my thoughts.
cb
Dear Baptist Identity,
I administer communion the same way as Spurgeon:
Mr. Spurgeon admits Pedobaptists to commune with his church “for two or three months.” Then they are kindly asked whether they are pleased with the church, its doctrine, of government, etc. If they are pleased, they are asked if they are not disposed to be baptized and become members? If so inclined, all is well but if not, they are kindly told that it is not desirable for them to commune longer. Thus baptism is held to precede church membership and permanent communion, although temporary communion is permitted without it.
Mr. Spurgeon, as we have seen, permitted non-baptized persons temporarily to partake of the Lord’s Supper unchallenged but if there appeared a disposition to make participation habitual, one of the deacons in a private interview explained Baptist doctrine and urged the duty of baptism. If this advice was not taken, participation in the Lord’s Supper naturally ceased. (Strong’s Systematic Theology)
Where doest thou placest me in thou identity?
chadwick
CB: Our church observes once a month which is fine with me. I would observe every week without objection but that’s just me. I personally think that once a quarter or less is not often enough but I’m not willing to fight about that without a biblical mandate. Most of what I have read suggests the early church observed every week but as I say, we don’t have a specific command as to frequency.
CB: Where is the famine springing from? Are pastors being taught proper ecclesiology in seminary? If so, where is the breakdown?
Alan,
I would not want to be the Lord’s Supper police either.
To “start calling the roll” would definitely ruin the way we do things in our local church.
cb
Bill,
It is my opinion seminary students should take OT and NT every semester of their seminary tenure.
It is also my opinion that they should take a course in a theological discipline every semester of their seminary tenure.
Overviews and surveys are not enough.
My answer to your question would be that; I do not believe seminary students study ecclesiology or any other doctrine of the faith as much as they should before graduation.
Again, please know this is just my opinion.
cb
Brother Chadwick,
My anti-spam word is “kindness”, thus, allow me to respond to you in like manner as you have asked your question.
Thou shouldst place thyself with Scripture rather than appealing either to the fallible Spurgeon or to the fallible Strong. When thou hast identified thyself with Scripture, then thou wilt have a relevant platform from which to speaketh with regard to Baptist identity. If thou beleiveth that, “Because a Baptist said it, it is therefore true,” thou hast forgotten to begin with a biblical identity (i.e. a Baptist identity).
Allow me to now take on the logic of Dr. Spurgeon in his desire to use the Lord’s Table in what appears to be an evangelistic endeavor. Do you think God allows someone to go to heaven and experience the fellowship of Brothers and Sisters in Christ for two or three months before making a decision about his commands? I thinkest our illustrious English Baptist Calvinistic pastor’s logic, on this particular subject, is illogical. Therefore, I appealest thou to return to the document that all Baptist Identity derives from–Holy Writ.
Blessings,
Tim
“Do you think God allows someone to go to heaven and experience the fellowship of Brothers and Sisters in Christ for two or three months before making a decision about his commands?”
So the real basis of BI comes forth: decisional regeneration. Great!
I am still wondering. If you are going to issue an intent to force the SBC back to an implicit creedal faith and the sacramentalism of baptism, why not go all the way and emmasculate yourselves with a return to the Calvinism that undergirded SBC’s founding?
“I appealest thou to return to the document that all Baptist Identity derives from–Holy Writ.”
So we should. And since, according to Scripture, one is made a partaker in the body and blood of Christ before baptism, since one is engrafted into Christ’s body the church before baptism, why do you prevent him from the table unless he is instrumentally baptized according to BI? Seems very much that what you are asking is for one to be circumcised to be sanctified for the table.
If one capitulates to your exaltation of the BFM, should he kiss it, too?
Brother cb, (responding to #9)
Paul doesn’t ask the question of who should come to the “Table”. The Apostle is not determining that question (it seems that question has been invented for purposes of ecclesiological maneuvering). Paul states the condition differently than many are espousing in these blogs.….Paul is speaking in the affirmative when he encourages the Corinthians (and anyone else for that matter) to partake of the Lord’s Supper. He never says “who” should be taking the Table, that is a given (those called out ones in Christ, “the church of God”). His encouragement is that they take it “not as a typical meal”… where some for instance may get drunk and leave others out of the meal. His encouragement is to look at your actions, motive and reason as you carry out what the Lord has left as His remembrance and proclamation as you come together.
Paul’s context in this section of his teaching is……
“1 Corinthians 11:1-2 Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. (2) Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.
Paul is speaking as a fellow believer, delivering tradition as Christ had taught and delivered to the disciples and Paul then expects every believer without exception to continue this tradition. Then later his correction moving into the Lord’s Table…..
1 Corinthians 11:16-22 But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. (17) But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. (18) For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. (19) For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. (20) Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper, (21) for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. (22) What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.
As has been established, the Apostle is obviously speaking to the Corinthians who are the primary emphasis of the letter … “as you meet together or come together as “a church”,…He also does not limit his audience from the context when he states as if you are despising the entire “church of God”. It is clear that in every instance the phrase “church of God” as rendered in any of the Apostles letters, ….is referencing the entire church throughout the world. This also corroborates his introduction….
1 Corinthians 1:2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours:
Where Paul is recognizing the “church of God” (throughout the world) with emphasis on this group at Corinth “with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,”. It is clear that Paul’s principle of ecclesiology did not exclude the “church of God” as partakers of the Table of our Lord in any place at any time, just as he would partake while in their presence the same tradition that was delivered to him and the one he has delivered to them.
So,…I agree it would be silly to conform the Lord’s Table to some evangelical invention for loving your neighbor. The Table is for the “called out ones” of Christ that come together to proclaim the Lord Christ. I have yet to find any scripture that would teach that Christ’s church is to inform its leadership or anyone in a local assembly to discourage the partaking of the Lord’s Table to those of the “church of God” that have examined themselves when they come together as a church.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Thomas,
Your meandering goeth further than anyone has argued. However, I thankest thou for your brief, but exagerated analysis.
Blessings,
Tim
Chris,I agree with you that we are not to conform the Lord’s Table to some evangelical invention ofr loving your neighbor.
I do believe that loving one’s neighbor as thyself is part of a needful reflection when coming to the Lord’s Table as Believers. Do you agree?I think you are agreeming with me somewhat here. I may be misunderstanding you. Am I correct to believe you are agreeing with me in at least part of what I said?Let me go on to say I think we are in disagreement about the church of God in Corinth.I believe Pauls letters are to a specific local church. I believe both letters (maybe three or four some say) were written to a local body of Believers located in Corinth. I believe the primary application of those letters was to that local body of Believers.Due to the absolute fact those letters (the two extant letters) are Spirit inspired letters; it is also an absolute fact they have application to all Believers (Body of Christ) who make up all local NT churches for all ages.With that in mind, I believe Paul would know he was writing to a group of people (The church of God at Corinth) who had all professed Christ and had followed Christ in Baptism as would be consistent with biblical theology based uopn, yet not exclusively, the Great Commission mandate give the Church by Christ.Does that make any sence to you?cb
Tim,
How did my comment #26 get so scrutched up.
You know I have never talked that fast in my whole life.
Where are all of my normal slow it down commas that I normally use,,,,Tim?:-)
cb
Brother cb,
Yes, I believe we are in agreement that the letters written by the Apostle Paul were intended to arrive at Corinth to admonish and to encourage that group of believers, and because of how the Apostle wrote the letters….i.e. an obvious the “church of God” (all believers) audience, the principles intended for the Corinthians can be supplied to any and all believers as they come together for worship and fellowship. This is further proof that the Apostle does not narrow the view of participation and expectation to merely a local gathering of believers. Loving your neighbor is simply a command. The neighbor may never desire to come to the Table,… nor should he or she,… unless he or she has confessed Christ as Savior and Lord.
The point that I am making concerning this letter (1 Corinthians) and its application to the Lord’s Table, is that there is not a question as to “who” is expected to partake of the Lord’s Table. In other words Paul is encouraging those that have confessed Christ to proclaim Christ rightly in His Table, ….in other words not from selfish, misguided indulgence.
I can conjecture, since it is not prescriptive of privilege to the Lord’s Table, that those associated with the Corinthian churches and all the Christ followers from other locations were certainly about the business of baptizing, teaching baptism and how baptism was an important identification to Christ in discipleship. No doubt, their baptizing system and selfish design didn’t seem to sit well with Paul as well. I would suspect that the disciples in Acts 19, which were in a similar situation as Apollos, were all partaking in the Lord’s Table, festivities and fellowships of the Messiah and were obviously willing to obey the Lord’s commands as they learned of the traditions. So we, as those that know Christ, should provide this same encouragement.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
If I take your comment correctly as you have intended it I do see one difference between us here.
I do see Paul’s letter being very specific as to being written to a local church. That church waqs the “local church” in Corinth.
Verse 2 in the KJV (Iam not a KJV only guy. I say this in case any Wild Geese are flying by or any Wild Goose Farm owners are lurking in the bushes:-) makes this plain, in my opinion.
“Unto the church of God which is at Corinth,….”
Now let me hasten to say that I am not saying there is an evidence of a closed commun ion here as is described by many in the last many, many years.
Let me illustrate my position with a story.
Let us say there were some fellows and their wives and kids who were from churches in both Nothern and Southern Galatia who had gone into the sword making business together.
The guys, along with their wives and kids went to Corinth t old to hire some of the old Roman soldiers who had retired to Corinth to be distributors for their new swords.
When they got there they found out that the two old soldiers had become part of the fellowship of the church of God at Corinth. Not only were they part of the fellowship; they were very active along with their wives in the church at Corinth.
As the guys all got to making their business arrangements they also began to talk about their common faith in Christ.
The old soldiers tell about how their church had been in a mess and Paul had written them some pretty rough letters about all the things going on in their church. Yet, now the church was geting along pretty good and they had even restored one really messed up guy to the fellowship after he had gotten his heart right with God and gave up being shacked up with a certain woman.
Now those fellows from the churches in northern and Southern Galatia really got to praising God for the good things they were hearing from their new sword business partners of Corinth.
Then the old soldiers got really happy and they all got to shoutin’ and praisin’ God for the revival in their church and because God had blessed them with Christian business partners who believed and practiced their faith the same as had Paul instructed them when he “planted” the church at Corinth.
So, the old soldiers ask the folks from Northern and Southern Galita to stay through until the Lord’s Day and be in the worship service with them.
They tell their new sword business partners that they have just called a new pastor name Vol. He was from the church up in the hill country around Smyrna and he was sure ’nuff a good preacher.
Every one agrees and so the guys with their families from both Northern and Southern Galatia agree to stay and go to church with their new sword business partners right there at the Church in Corinth.
Sunday comes and they all go to meetin’ together, happy as pigs in slop.
They gwet there and Vol greets them right off with his hill country hospitality and makes tem feel really welcome.
Now, the church at Corinth is going to observe the Lord’s Supper that very morning.
All the visitors from Northern and Southern are active followers of Christ in their home churches. They have all followed Christ in biblical Baptism. In other words they were truly baptized according to exactly what the word baptize means.
Now, Chris, here is the question:
Does Vol allow these Believers from the churches of Northern and Southern Galatia partake of the Lord’s Supper with the church of God at Corinth?
Chris,
As you can see my spell checker is off.
But I think you can get the drift of the story if you read it with your face directed toward Birmingham:-)
cb
Brother cb,
That is a very common and true analogy that happens day in and day out. The biblical record is clear to indicate that Brother Vol should encourage all brothers and sisters in Christ to proclaim Christ at His Table and he should partake as well, even though he is new to the group and not extremely well known, seeing that no more than half of the church attended the two messages he preached in view of his recent call and the thirty percent that voted against his call are not really that enthused with how this thing has turned out. I mean being from Smyrna and all.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother cb,
This discussion has also reminded me of how Western minded our churches have become and how many try in some ways to act out what God can only do. For instance, a term that seems to be popular these days is “regenerate church membership”. I think I can see the intent …. In that pastors would like to know without any reservation that everyone on their roll is truly a believer, because after all, if they really are believers,…then they can be worked into shape and “should love” the process. Well, the terminology of “regenerate church membership” is the same as calling your local utility company and saying, I would prefer to have “wet water” today.
My point is that we are so eager to do God’s work the “right” way, that we begin speaking about God and His work in a way that is foreign to scripture. Holy Scripture never alludes to the church as “regenerate church membership” for instance, because She simply cannot be anything but born again. Since the “Church of God, which meets at Corinth is such, She is expected to examine herself. According to Paul, it is the person that examines themselves, as they come together for worship, since it is also obvious that the believers understand the value of Matthew 18 and loving their own. If anyone has truly been involved with church discipline (I would say most Pastors have very little experience), then you would know as you confront blatant sin, such as incest or the like, it is obvious that person is not clamoring about his rights to come to the Lord’s Table. So, it is a bit of a straw man to build arguments of admittance to the Lord’s Table in such a fashion. In fact, the scripture is clear that you are not to even eat or associate with such an unrepentant heart. Many people use this “straw man” argument of anonymity because of their unwillingness to confront sin in the church, so it is easier to just say to a visitor, since we don’t know him we will assume he is not worthy of Christ’s Table, as if you are protecting him. That type of thinking is opposite the principles laid out by Paul as he encourages “all” to partake of the Lord’s Table.
Paul does not narrow the partaking of the Lord’s Table for good reason. He encourages it, because he understands the command of the Lord is vitally important as the “Church of God” proclaims Her Lord.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
I really think you misunderstand what is meant by regenerate church membership.
As a matter of fact, I believe the biggest difference in our ideas here has to do with ecclesiology.
There are many members of local churches who do not know Christ as Savior and Lord.
It is true that only Believers make up the Body of Christ. That is just not the case in local churches. As a matter of fact there are many pastors of local churches who are not believers. I actually believe that number is growing. I do not say that with ease. Actually, it greatly burdens me.
I posted about this in my most recent post on my blog. Far too many people sit in our churches Sunday after Sunday believing themselves to be Christians who are not. I am afraid the gospel of Christ is just not being taught and preached in many churches.
Chris, it really is sad that so many people belong to Baptist churches today who are not part of the Body of Christ.
cb
Brother cb,
I don’t disagree with you that the preaching of the gospel happens rarely. What is most heard these days is the Law only. In other words,..do this, do that, treat your husband right, treat your wife even better so she will submit, don’t drink, be like Jesus, what would Jesus do,..etc., etc. Yet the Law can only bring death. So we end up with congregations that have never heard the gospel or have rarely hear it all year long, but are comfortably prepared to judge the worthiness of their congregates by what they do or what they should be allowed to do, not by whose (in Christ) they are. Being members one of another is quite different than being on the roll as a “regenerate church member”.
Blessings,
Chris
Chris,
I still think you are missing the difference between The Church Universal (Body of Christ) and a local church.
it really is a matter of ecclesiology.
cb
Robin, regarding defining communion terminology you might find this interesting — Participants in the Lord’s Supper — defining Baptist views. It contains my thoughts, but also those of Nathan Finn, whose “The Relationship between Baptism and the Lord’s Supper: Four Views” is linked therein.
Brother cb,
I think you are right concerning ecclesiology,..in that anyone who reads and studies scripture must decide in what manner they perceive the church. Once that is established in their mind, it becomes their hermeneutic by which they read scripture and determine for what reason the body of Christ was formed (Church of God) and for what reason the body of Christ joins together in fellowship at the local level.
So if one believes as I do, then a local church (as the called out ones that come together) is simply a consequential gathering of the Church of God (some refer to that a universal, but there are many definitions floating around for that as well and it can be dangerous these days). So that the purpose of the order within a local congregation is to encourage one another as we worship Christ, fellowship, study and teach the Word of God and partake in the commands of the Lord (Baptism and the Lord’s Table). Participating in Baptism and the Lord’s Supper certainly are commands to obey by a local church, because they (the Church of God) are commissioned and given that charter. That is why I argue that Paul does not narrow his writing as some have alleged. It is clear that the Apostles understood that the “local church” is a consequence of the church (Christ’s body), so that in every letter, never to the contrary, their encouragement speaks this way “when you come together”, “the church at Corinth”, “But Saul began ravaging the church, entering house after house”, “The news about them reached the ears of the church at Jerusalem”, “So Peter was kept in the prison, but prayer for him was being made fervently by the church to God.”, “And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers,”.
God births His church one individual at a time and has provided an array of things for His church and then shows us that the church He has birthed meets together “at” certain places (scripture marks those out for us). I’m afraid that some believe God created “two” churches, first a local church and then the universal for convenience sake, and never shall the twain meet especially if your serving the Lord’s Table. Paul has made it clear that Christ is not divided.
Blessings,
Chris