Should Women be allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper?

[Wittenberger]

Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans believe that it is scriptural to allow women to partake of the Lord's Supper.

This is false doctrine! It is not scriptural! It is a lie from the pit!

Where in the Bible is there any mention of women partaking of the Lord's Supper? NOT IN ONE SINGLE VERSE, anywhere in the Bible! That's where!

These (supposed) Christian denominations derive this false doctrine from passages of scripture, that to them, seem to infer the possibility that women may partake of the Lord's Supper.

Inferences and assumptions are not the basis of Christian practice, my friends! If it is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, it is not scriptural, IT IS FROM THE PIT! It is false doctrine.

Don't let the Catholics and Lutherans fool you with their white-washed Catholic history books that reference Church Fathers as supporting female Holy Communion participation. It is all a lie, my friends!

Women are not allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper! The Bible never says that women can participate. Were there any women mentioned at the Last Supper? No! If your denomination allows it, they are not true Christians, and you should flee to a true Christian church that follows the literal interpretation of the Bible.

The Lord's Supper is for men only! Read your Bible, my friends! You won't find a single woman mentioned taking the Lord's Supper!

 

[Sapper Woody]

There weren't any gentiles mentioned at the Lord's supper, either. It also didn't happen in a church. Judas was allowed to take the Lord's supper, consider the implications with that if we are to follow it explicitly.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Obviously, there were women who participated in the Lord's Supper in the Corinthian Church.

We see the epistle was written to the Church of God in the first chapter.
We know there were women in the Corinthian Church because Paul said they could not speak in tongues in the Church, but that they could pray and prophesy as long as their heads were covered.

Paul spoke of both men and women alike in the eleventh chapter of 1 Corinthians, and he began the Lord's Supper dialogue with "when ye come together to eat, this is not the Lord's Supper" He then chides them for their greediness and lack of concern for those that have nothing and then gives the proper method of administering the Lord's Supper.

Women were there, and they did participate...when ye come together.

 

[mandym]

Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans believe that it is scriptural to allow women to partake of the Lord's Supper.

This is false doctrine! It is not scriptural! It is a lie from the pit!

Where in the Bible is there any mention of women partaking of the Lord's Supper? NOT IN ONE SINGLE VERSE, anywhere in the Bible! That's where!

These (supposed) Christian denominations derive this false doctrine from passages of scripture, that to them, seem to infer the possibility that women may partake of the Lord's Supper.

Inferences and assumptions are not the basis of Christian practice, my friends! If it is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, it is not scriptural, IT IS FROM THE PIT! It is false doctrine.

Don't let the Catholics and Lutherans fool you with their white-washed Catholic history books that reference Church Fathers as supporting female Holy Communion participation. It is all a lie, my friends!

Women are not allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper! The Bible never says that women can participate. Were there any women mentioned at the Last Supper? No! If your denomination allows it, they are not true Christians, and you should flee to a true Christian church that follows the literal interpretation of the Bible.

The Lord's Supper is for men only! Read your Bible, my friends! You won't find a single woman mentioned taking the Lord's Supper!

Yea you will not find a single person using a toilet either anywhere in scripture.

 

[IANMO(IAMNTMYOWN)]

Women are not allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper! The Bible never says that women can participate. Were there any women mentioned at the Last Supper? No! If your denomination allows it, they are not true Christians, and you should flee to a true Christian church that follows the literal interpretation of the Bible.

The Lord's Supper is for men only! Read your Bible, my friends! You won't find a single woman mentioned taking the Lord's Supper!

You won't find men or women doing alot of things in the Scripture, Wittenberger. Simply because it is not stated does not mean it didn't occur. As for your adament statement against the validity of a church's christianity concerning this matter, I highly contend with it. The whole point of the Lord's Supper is to remember Christ's crucifixion and blood that made it possible for us to have forgiveness for our sins and eternal life in heaven. I am pretty sure women were included in that atonement. Quite frankly, I don't see the heresy in this, and feel that is not a doctrine you are arguing but rather an opinion that you hold. I would never leave a church over this issue.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Wittenberger is being sarcastic and mocking Baptists and others who believe in the primacy of scripture. His post is stupid and unworthy of response.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I guess preachers should not perform weddings. There is no mention of any clergy being involved in weddings in the NT.

I am reading a book on the Mayflower. The Puritans never had clergy involved in a wedding for the reason mentioned above ... not mentioned in the NT.

 

[Wittenberger]

Wittenberger is being sarcastic and mocking Baptists and others who believe in the primacy of scripture. His post is stupid and unworthy of response.

No, Michael, I am trying to make a point:

Just because God doesn't explicitly mention women partaking of the Lord's Supper doesn't mean they didn't.

The same is true with infant baptism: just because it is not explicitly mentioned in the NT, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I know Baptists/evangelicals have other reasons why they do not believe in infant baptism, but your own arguments listed here on this thread prove that just because it isn't mentioned, does not mean it isn't scriptural.

 

[IANMO(IAMNTMYOWN)]

No, Michael, I am trying to make a point:

Just because God doesn't explicitly mention women partaking of the Lord's Supper doesn't mean they didn't.

The same is true with infant baptism: just because it is not explicitly mentioned in the NT, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I know Baptists/evangelicals have other reasons why they do not believe in infant baptism, but your own arguments listed here on this thread prove that just because it isn't mentioned, does not mean it isn't scriptural.

If you knew the answer, why did you ask? If you want to use these statements to make a point in defending your stand on infant baptism, it is a sorry defense and a lame way to go about it. Start another thread if you must, and actually back this belief. Don't use random quotes that you pull from people and than stretch them to meet your criteria.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

No, Michael, I am trying to make a point:

Just because God doesn't explicitly mention women partaking of the Lord's Supper doesn't mean they didn't.

The same is true with infant baptism: just because it is not explicitly mentioned in the NT, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I know Baptists/evangelicals have other reasons why they do not believe in infant baptism, but your own arguments listed here on this thread prove that just because it isn't mentioned, does not mean it isn't scriptural.

You have no point, and your OP is ridiculous.

 

[Wittenberger]

You have no point, and your OP is ridiculous.

Yes, there is a point: Just because infant baptism is not explicitly mentioned in the NT does not mean it didn't happen; does not mean it isn't scriptural.

Stop using this argument!

 

[IANMO(IAMNTMYOWN)]

Yes, there is a point: Just because infant baptism is not explicitly mentioned in the NT does not mean it didn't happen; does not mean it isn't scriptural.

Stop using this argument!

I'd be interested to know your stand on infant baptism, if you'd like to defend it. I've never heard a clear argument against or for it. I don't appreciate your approach in trying to make this point. From what I can tell, you don't even believe what you stated in your first post about the Lord's Supper.

 

[Scarlett O.]

No, Michael, I am trying to make a point:

Just because God doesn't explicitly mention women partaking of the Lord's Supper doesn't mean they didn't.

The same is true with infant baptism: just because it is not explicitly mentioned in the NT, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I know Baptists/evangelicals have other reasons why they do not believe in infant baptism, but your own arguments listed here on this thread prove that just because it isn't mentioned, does not mean it isn't scriptural.

Brother Wittenberger, you have proved absolutely NOTHING. Everybody on this board knows that Bible doesn't mention every conceivable event possible for human behavior or Christian living. The Bible would weigh more than the Empire State Building if it did.

And what everyone here knows - except for you apparently - that for the outcomes and events that are NOT mentioned in the Word, whether or not they are applicable or God approved, depends upon how they align with the rest of scripture.

For example, in the Old Testament Law, being a lesbian is not mentioned. It's VERY clear in the law that male homosexuality was a sin. Do you think that the Old Testament Jews turned a blind eye to women who engaged in homosexual behavior or that God did during that time? (Lesbianism is mention in the New Testament). Of course they didn't. They didn't say, "Well, God didn't say anything about women having relationships with women, so it must be OK." That's ridiculous. Also, in the entirety of the Bible, pedophilia is never mentioned. Does that mean it's OK? God didn't specifically condemn it, did He?

One MUST view any non-mentioned human outcome or event or religious practice with related ideas in scripture. God explicitly stated that sex is between a husband and a wife. So - if ANY other kind of sex - whether it be mentioned or not - is practiced by humanity - it falls under the condemned practice of fornication. The Bible also doesn't condemn smoking pot and many people want to justify that, but the Bible also doesn't mention shining a laser pointer in someone's eye and we DON'T condone that either.

The same thing with infant baptism. Your reasoning is that, "Well, God didn't mention infant baptism, so it must be alright with Him if we practice it."

Why? Have you investigated what the Bible DOES say about baptism - its purposes, who it is for, and what it accomplishes? Have you compared the purposes, person, and accomplishments of infant baptism to the Biblical model to see if there are any corresponding truths?

Baptism, in the Bible, is for the believer - the one who has placed his or her faith in Christ. It is a symbol of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection and is for the believer to testify of his or her new identity being found in Christ. It is not for salvation's sake, but for the public identification with being saved.

An infant cannot understand, process, decide, testify, nor symbolize ANY of this.

Your zeal for changing everyone here reminds me of Don Quixote fighting the windmills - believing them to be dragons and monsters. There's someone else in the Bible who had a lot of zeal, too. His name was Paul. When God changed him, he didn't take away his zeal. He merely channeled it in the proper direction. If you would re-direct your zeal into fellowshipping with us instead of picking fights all of the time, you would be more effective in your walk.

You aren't going to change anyone's mind here about infant baptism. NOT because we are Baptists. I don't really put a lot of stock into that title. It's because we follow the Biblical model for baptism.

Do we have our own man-made traditions as Baptists and try to sneak in things that aren't Biblical or that we claim can align with the Bible, but don't. Sure. ALL denominations do that.

If one is unsure of a Christian practice and can't find it in the Bible, he or she should see if it can be lined up with what God says about similar things. That's the test.

 

[IANMO(IAMNTMYOWN)]

Preach it, Scarlett:thumbs:

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Yes, there is a point: Just because infant baptism is not explicitly mentioned in the NT does not mean it didn't happen; does not mean it isn't scriptural.

Stop using this argument!

It didn't happen for one simple reason: The New Covenant is not the Old; its requirements for membership are not those of the Old. The New Covenant is membership in spiritual Israel, entered by spiritual means -- faith and spiritual rebirth; the Old Covenant was membership in physical Israel, entered by physical means.

Membership in the New Covenant requires personal faith, not faith of parents, faith of sponsors, faith of the "church". No one else can have faith for you. In the NT, requirement for baptism was faith.

That settles it. You have already been shown how every argument for infant baptism can be and has been debunked. The article by the former Presbyterian pastor is incontrovertible, for instance.

Infant baptism is a practice introduced by superstition, fear, and errors about original sin as the stream got further from its source, the New Testament and earliest churches. It is thus a mere "tradition of men".

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Brother Wittenberger, you have proved absolutely NOTHING. Everybody on this board knows that Bible doesn't mention every conceivable event possible for human behavior or Christian living. The Bible would weigh more than the Empire State Building if it did.

And what everyone here knows - except for you apparently - that for the outcomes and events that are NOT mentioned in the Word, whether or not they are applicable or God approved, depends upon how they align with the rest of scripture.

For example, in the Old Testament Law, being a lesbian is not mentioned. It's VERY clear in the law that male homosexuality was a sin. Do you think that the Old Testament Jews turned a blind eye to women who engaged in homosexual behavior or that God did during that time? (Lesbianism is mention in the New Testament). Of course they didn't. They didn't say, "Well, God didn't say anything about women having relationships with women, so it must be OK." That's ridiculous. Also, in the entirety of the Bible, pedophilia is never mentioned. Does that mean it's OK? God didn't specifically condemn it, did He?

One MUST view any non-mentioned human outcome or event or religious practice with related ideas in scripture. God explicitly stated that sex is between a husband and a wife. So - if ANY other kind of sex - whether it be mentioned or not - is practiced by humanity - it falls under the condemned practice of fornication. The Bible also doesn't condemn smoking pot and many people want to justify that, but the Bible also doesn't mention shining a laser pointer in someone's eye and we DON'T condone that either.

The same thing with infant baptism. Your reasoning is that, "Well, God didn't mention infant baptism, so it must be alright with Him if we practice it."

Why? Have you investigated what the Bible DOES say about baptism - its purposes, who it is for, and what it accomplishes? Have you compared the purposes, person, and accomplishments of infant baptism to the Biblical model to see if there are any corresponding truths?

Baptism, in the Bible, is for the believer - the one who has placed his or her faith in Christ. It is a symbol of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection and is for the believer to testify of his or her new identity being found in Christ. It is not for salvation's sake, but for the public identification with being saved.

An infant cannot understand, process, decide, testify, nor symbolize ANY of this.

Your zeal for changing everyone here reminds me of Don Quixote fighting the windmills - believing them to be dragons and monsters. There's someone else in the Bible who had a lot of zeal, too. His name was Paul. When God changed him, he didn't take away his zeal. He merely channeled it in the proper direction. If you would re-direct your zeal into fellowshipping with us instead of picking fights all of the time, you would be more effective in your walk.

You aren't going to change anyone's mind here about infant baptism. NOT because we are Baptists. I don't really put a lot of stock into that title. It's because we follow the Biblical model for baptism.

Do we have our own man-made traditions as Baptists and try to sneak in things that aren't Biblical or that we claim can align with the Bible, but don't. Sure. ALL denominations do that.

If one is unsure of a Christian practice and can't find it in the Bible, he or she should see if it can be lined up with what God says about similar things. That's the test.

Just an excellent post!

Anyone who accepts infant baptism can only do so by elevating tradition to equality with scripture, something the Magisterial Protestant Reformers explicitly condemned. And yet they fell right into this error of infant baptism which is based only on tradition, as I have shown that the Catholic Encyclopedia even admits.

 

[billwald]

The Law did not require priests to officiate at marriages and neither does the NT require priests or any other official. Marriages were a tribal affair.

It was the Roman government which first started registering Roman marriages for political reasons. The Orthodox Catholic assumed the function after the Roman government collapsed.

Baptist are pushing for a Catholic tradition but don't know it.

 

[billwald]

This thread demonstrates the goofiness of the "Judeo-Christian" concept. Christianity is a new religion which uses and revises Jewish documents.

 

[mont974x4]

The OP is ridiculous as is the act and belief in infant baptism.

Mar 16:16 "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. (NASB)


Note that baptism is not the issue for salvation, but belief is the point.


Act 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.
Act 8:36 As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch *said, "Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?"
Act 8:37 [And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."]
Act 8:38 And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him. (NASB)


Again, belief is the prerequisite.



In Acts 9 we find the account of Paul's salvation. He was saved, and then baptized (v. 18). In Acts 10 Peter preaches and people were saved...and then baptized.

Now I know the argument. Acts 16 and 18 talks about whole households being baptized. The argument suggests that there must have been infants there. That simply is not the truth. Use some common sense and consider the situation. How many families, how many households, do you know that have no infants in them? I would bet that the vast majority do not have any infants in them. We should also note that belief was again the key issue.



Apart from belief the only thing that happens is the person gets wet. Then you have a wet unsaved person in your midst, and nothing more. Infants are not capable of making the decision to believe. So infant baptism does nothing but make the infant wet.

 

[DHK]

Yes, there is a point: Just because infant baptism is not explicitly mentioned in the NT does not mean it didn't happen; does not mean it isn't scriptural.

Stop using this argument!

Why?
Just because it is not explicitly mentioned in the NT that Paul rode a bicycle for transportation, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Isn't that your argument? Do we argue from silence or from what the Bible teaches about what we know. We know the different modes of transportation of Paul used. But the mode of transportation he used doesn't affect doctrine.

The mode of baptism, the time of baptism, the person being baptized, all affect the doctrine we believe, and in some cases affect one's very eternal destiny. Now that is more important than a bicycle, wouldn't you say?