Does Acts 2:42 show that only Christians may partake of the Lord’s Supper?
Question:
In the discussion "Should congregations practice closed communion?" you say that "No passage indicates that the Lord's Supper must only be offered to Christians. It only has meaning for Christians, but we don't add rules God didn't give. If a non-Christian wishes to partake of the Lord's Supper, it doesn't change his status before the Lord."
We have one sister who insists that we see clearly in Acts 2 that only those who believed, repented, and were baptized were the examples who took the Lord's Supper (breaking of bread). "They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer" (Acts 2:42).
Is not letting a non-Christian partake of the Lord's Supper like adding to the command that we should celebrate it? The pattern is that Christians should do it.
God bless.
Answer:
No one disputes that Christians are commanded to partake of the Lord's Supper. The question is whether the Lord's Supper must be reserved for Christians only. Acts 2:42 states that Christians partook of the Lord's Supper, but nothing in the verse says only Christians were allowed to partake. To add "only" to this verse would be adding to what God said.
This is a similar mistake to those who attempt to prove that we are saved by faith only by citing passages that mention we are saved by faith. They assume that stating faith saves makes it exclusive (despite other passages that connect other things to salvation). "Only" is not a necessary implication.
To give another example, "Children started school this week" does not imply only children started school. The statement remains true even if the community college also started the same week.
It cannot be proven from the Scriptures that non-Christians partook of the Lord's Supper, nor that they were not allowed to partake. It is simply not stated, so we cannot assume one way or the other. We neither add nor take away from what God has said.
