Do you have to be baptized to take the Lord's Supper?

[JesusFan]

"Only Baptism is given to publicly identify with Christ." - Ruiz

"Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven." - Mt. 10:32

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." - Rom. 10:9

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

Confession also appears to be a way to publically identify with Christ. Is not a credible profession of faith then a legitimate prerequsite to the LS?

The Bible staes ONLY that a believer in jesus is able to take the communion, and that he needs to be in "good standing" at the time of taking it before the Lord...

Its a stretch to add water Baptism, as that would appear to be the requirement for official local church membership, sign to assembly that one has placed faith in jesus and been saved by God...

My church has "open" communion, we do not check baptism modes, or if even been water baptise, but do require them to be saved!

Think also the question of just HOW one sees the church, what baptism is, closed/open communion etc comes into play on this OP!

 

[annsni]

Since I hold that baptism is a local church ordinance, and baptism is a pre-requisite for church membership, my answer is no.

The timing of the baptism is a logistical thing for your church. Your congregation has established its own roadblocks to baptism, which it certainly has a right to do. But it shouldn't take months, in my opinion.

I wish it didn't take months as well but honestly, we haven't found a good solution. We did a beach baptism this summer but what do we do in the winter? As I said, we could do a baptism at the home church but there would be VERY few in attendance (we like to have at least the person's small group in attendance) and it's over 40 minutes away from the location of the hotel. We checked at the local YMCA, the health clubs, schools and other hotels but so far it's been a "no". The next thing we are going to do is to find another church with a baptismal and see if we could use their facilities after church on Sundays for baptisms. Hopefully that could work.

 

[gb93433]

In other words, if you are not Baptized then you have not Biblically identified yourself as a Christian. The Lord's Supper is only for those who have identified themselves as Christians. Therefore, if you have not been Baptized then you should not take the Lord's Supper.

Before I was baptized I openly proclaimed Christ in the college newspaper in college. Later in the free speech platform. What I saw in other Christians led me to believe that baptism was nothing more than a dunk in the water especially when I saw how some of them lived and did not proclaim Christ except inside the church building.

If a church believes that one must be baptized to partake of the Lord's Supper then they must always have a baptismal service.

 

[gb93433]

Baptism does not save; therefore, someone can be saved and not Baptized. However, a person who is saved should be baptized in order to be recognized as identifying with Christ; baptism is a sign of belief. There is no other sign given to recognize someone's confession is true and valid.

Baptism in the early church had far more meaning then today. To have been baptized in the early Chruch one could have lost his life for naming Christ as Lord and renouncing the emperor as lord.

What would be the equivalent in America?

 

[matt wade]

If a church believes that one must be baptized to partake of the Lord's Supper then they must always have a baptismal service.

I agree with you. I also agree with Tom Butler that the Lord's Supper is for local church members only.

My church will baptize at any time. If someone is saved in a service, we will (if they choose) baptize them at that service, whether the water heater was turned on or not .

 

[freeatlast]

Before I was baptized I openly proclaimed Christ in the college newspaper in college. Later in the free speech platform. What I saw in other Christians led me to believe that baptism was nothing more than a dunk in the water especially when I saw how some of them lived and did not proclaim Christ except inside the church building.

If a church believes that one must be baptized to partake of the Lord's Supper then they must always have a baptismal service.

The sad thing is that your experience is the same for many because of many who lead our churches baptism is treated like "nothing more than a dunk in the water" as they put it off with excuses and then justify it in their own minds. If they really felt it to be important nothing would get in the way of baptizing new converts as they are saved as is the biblical example. Even if it is done in a bathtub or in something else if it was properly honored and sanctified it would be done and not put off or neglected.

After I was saved I was on the way to be baptized and was in a motor cycle wreck. It had been snowing but was just cold and rainy and I was bleeding and my clothes were shredded. This happened on a rural road with very little traffic and a guy came by and stopped and I asked him to take me to the church down the road and he shouted through his open window that he was not driving to any church and sped off leaving me there alone wet, bleeding and with my clothing shredded. I left the motor cycle in the ditch and I walked about 5 miles to get to that church where I was then baptized. By the time I got there the service was almost over and I refused to take medical attention or to leave until I was Baptized. Nothing was more important to me then that baptism as it was my first command after salvation and it identified me publically with the Lord. Many others have put their lives on the line just to be baptized knowing that they could be murdered for doing it and yet today many just do it when ever. Certainly we have lost our way. The liberal agenda has so over taken our hearts and churches many have no clue as to what it means to be a Christian and because of that the world does not know what it means. The salt is losing its taste.
Today for many that identification means little to nothing as they feel they can do it any time that fits their schedule and many churches (the leadership) promote that mind set by their actions.

 

[freeatlast]

Baptism in the early church had far more meaning then today. To have been baptized in the early Chruch one could have lost his life for naming Christ as Lord and renouncing the emperor as lord.

What would be the equivalent in America?

For most there isn't any equivalent as baptism has little to no regard in importance for most churches as it is nothing but a ritual to many to do at our convenience. :tear:

 

[matt wade]

The sad thing is that your experience is the same for many because of many who lead our churches as baptism is treated like "nothing more than a dunk in the water" as they put it off with excuses and then justify it in their own minds. If they really felt it to be important nothing would get in the way of baptizing new converts as they are saved as is the biblical example. Even if it is done in a bathtub or in something else if it was properly honored and sanctified it would be done and not put off or neglected.

I agree with you. For any church to say that there are "logistical" or "practical" problems that keep them from baptizing someone right away is absurd. If they are unable to baptize people right away, they have no business running a church.

 

[annsni]

I agree with you. For any church to say that there are "logistical" or "practical" problems that keep them from baptizing someone right away is absurd. If they are unable to baptize people right away, they have no business running a church.

So how do we baptize someone immediately if we meet in a hotel? Do we get a bathtub? How do we get the congregation into the bathroom to watch?

 

[freeatlast]

So how do we baptize someone immediately if we meet in a hotel? Do we get a bathtub? How do we get the congregation into the bathroom to watch?

Sounds like you have another excuse and what is wrong with a bathtub? There is no command for the congregation to watch, just to be Baptized. The eunuch in Acts had no congregation to watch but his heart wanted to obey contrary to what we see in the church today so he was baptized.

 

[matt wade]

So how do we baptize someone immediately if we meet in a hotel? Do we get a bathtub? How do we get the congregation into the bathroom to watch?

Well, without knowing the exact situation there I obviously can't come up with an exact solution. Some ideas however, would be:

• Use a hottub or pool at someone's house
• Use a portable baptistry at your location or someone's house
• Go to the nearest lake, river, or pond
• Rent a hotel room (at your location) and baptize. Who said everyone needs to see it?

 

[Tom Butler]

So how do we baptize someone immediately if we meet in a hotel? Do we get a bathtub? How do we get the congregation into the bathroom to watch?

Ann, I appreciate your church's logistical problem, and don't wish to be critical. In fact, these days, maybe we ought not to be so quick to dunk new converts until we've talked further with them following their conversion. We need to make sure of their understanding of what's happening to them.

That said, a delay of several months does seem to be too long.

Re: the OP, Paul wrote in I Corinthians 11:2, telling the congregation to "guard the ordinances." That means to me that the congregation has the authority to decide whom it will baptize. Thus, baptism is a local church ordinance.

Later in Chapter 11, Paul deals with the right and wrong ways to observe the Lord's supper.

I think it's reasonable to assert that Paul was writing to baptized believers, members of the congregation at Corinth. Paul was instructing baptized believers on the proper way to have the LS.

That's why I hold that the LS is for baptized believers.

I also hold a minority view that only baptized members of a local church should participate--closed communion. My view is based partly on the question of church discipline, but that's another story.

 

[OldRegular]

Ann, I appreciate your church's logistical problem, and don't wish to be critical. In fact, these days, maybe we ought not to be so quick to dunk new converts until we've talked further with them following their conversion. We need to make sure of their understanding of what's happening to them.

That said, a delay of several months does seem to be too long.

Re: the OP, Paul wrote in I Corinthians 11:2, telling the congregation to "guard the ordinances." That means to me that the congregation has the authority to decide whom it will baptize. Thus, baptism is a local church ordinance.

Later in Chapter 11, Paul deals with the right and wrong ways to observe the Lord's supper.

I think it's reasonable to assert that Paul was writing to baptized believers, members of the congregation at Corinth. Paul was instructing baptized believers on the proper way to have the LS.

That's why I hold that the LS is for baptized believers.

I also hold a minority view that only baptized members of a local church should participate--closed communion. My view is based partly on the question of church discipline, but that's another story.

I agree Tom. I also believe in closed communion.

 

[JesusFan]

I agree Tom. I also believe in closed communion.

the person taking the Communion must be saved, washed in the blood of Christ...

jesus sees Him as belong to the Body of Christ, His own Church, so why deny based upon something that does not affect His eternal standing one way or another?

Can we really close off communion to them who Jesus sees as being part of His flock?

 

[Pastor David]

Ann, I appreciate your church's logistical problem, and don't wish to be critical. In fact, these days, maybe we ought not to be so quick to dunk new converts until we've talked further with them following their conversion. We need to make sure of their understanding of what's happening to them.

That said, a delay of several months does seem to be too long.

Re: the OP, Paul wrote in I Corinthians 11:2, telling the congregation to "guard the ordinances." That means to me that the congregation has the authority to decide whom it will baptize. Thus, baptism is a local church ordinance.

Later in Chapter 11, Paul deals with the right and wrong ways to observe the Lord's supper.

I think it's reasonable to assert that Paul was writing to baptized believers, members of the congregation at Corinth. Paul was instructing baptized believers on the proper way to have the LS.

That's why I hold that the LS is for baptized believers.

I also hold a minority view that only baptized members of a local church should participate--closed communion. My view is based partly on the question of church discipline, but that's another story.

We practice 'close' communion. We do not allow unbaptized people to partake in the LS. But we do invite members and vistors alike who have been baptized, not under church discipline, involved in open sin or scandal, and who can, with a clear conscience, confess Christ through partaking to do so.

 

[convicted1]

What if someone is saved on their death bed and wants to take communion? If they are too sick to get baptized, would you reject them wanting to partake of the Lord's body, seeing that they have been saved? What do y'all think about this scenario?

 

[Pastor David]

What if someone is saved on their death bed and wants to take communion? If they are too sick to get baptized, would you reject them wanting to partake of the Lord's body, seeing that they have been saved? What do y'all think about this scenario?

We believe local congregations should set forth their doctrine and practice based on that which they understand to be 'normative' in the life of the church. Therefore, it is normal that a person is baptized, received into the fellowship of the church, and then begins partaking in Communion with the Body of Christ. Circumstances which occur outside that which is considered normative simply have to be prayfully dealt with by the leadership, with the help of the Holy Spirit, and the light of God's Word.

 

[convicted1]

We believe local congregations should set forth their doctrine and practice based on that which they understand to be 'normative' in the life of the church. Therefore, it is normal that a person is baptized, received into the fellowship of the church, and then begins partaking in Communion with the Body of Christ. Circumstances which occur outside that which is considered normative simply have to be prayfully dealt with by the leadership, with the help of the Holy Spirit, and the light of God's Word.

I, personally, would serve tem myself, if I had to. I wouldn't want to not serve them, considering their circumstances. But I agree that each church should handle this the way they seem fit.

 

[Pastor David]

I, personally, would serve tem myself, if I had to. I wouldn't want to not serve them, considering their circumstances. But I agree that each church should handle this the way they seem fit.

I would not find fault if a pastor or church choose to serve the LS in such as case.

 

[convicted1]

I would not find fault if a pastor or church choose to serve the LS in such as case.

Good. I know that this probably isn't the normative case, but one worthy of thoughts and prayers, don't you think?