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

[mont974x4]

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!

BTW, I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read statements like this.

"Just because it isn't in the Bible does not mean its not biblical". :tonofbricks:


Something can not be found in Scripture and still be found to be godly, which is entirely different than being biblical.

Example:
Tonight we are having shredded BBQ chicken sandwiches for supper. This meal is not biblical. It is, however, godly, because it will be taken with thanksgiving and served with love and care to my family.

What we drive is not a biblical issue. However, how we drive may not be godly. Am I being loving? Am I submitting to the authorities God has placed over me?


We do have ideals and precedents found in Scripture that help for our doctrine and inform our conscience. I have already explained this as it relates to baptism in an earlier post. Scripture does tell us to watch our tongue and be careful of the things we say. It does not ban specific words. In such a case we take the principals related to the issue that we do find in Scripture and apply them to our cultural context. Words that are offensive in some contexts are not offensive in others. Care should be taken.

 

[Jon-Marc]

The Lord's supper (or communion) is for ALL who are born again--not just the men.

 

[Wittenberger]

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?

Ok, all my Baptists and evangelical friends. Since I'm not a pastor or theologian, I am going to do some studying and then...I'LL BE BACK...on this subject!!!

Michael Wren, how did you like my "its from the pit!" line. I heard that alot growing up as a fundamentalist. I hadn't seen it for over 20 years until I saw it in some of your comments.

Oh...they brought back memories...not good ones...but they did bring back memories!

 

[Tom Butler]

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

Actually, we do.

Judges 3 relates Ehud's visit to King Eglon. Eglon was in an upper room, when Ehud entered. It's widely believed that the upper room was his rest room. He was alone and the door was locked.

I Samuel 24:3 tells us that Saul went into a cave to "cover his feet."
Every translation newer than the KJV translates it as "relieve himself."

The Bible often uses euphemisms for bodily functions and other private activities.

Since this thread will soon be closed, thought I'd clear up a thing or two.

 

[saturneptune]

This is the number one thread for the ridiculous in BB history. The Bible is very explicit about who is not qualified to partake in the Lord's Supper. Scripture commands each person to examine himself worthy to partake, and gives serious penalities who take communion friviously. This could include a grudge against another person, using the Lord's Supper as a party, or rampant, unrepentant sin.

Where do you get off adding a requirement not there? Someone's gender is a new qualification? An example of someone who should be denied the Lord's Supper, if you want a valid example, is one of your pristine church members that has not darkened the door for decades, and shows no evidence of living a life for Christ. My guess is that if some of the members on your roll did show up after years of absence on communion day, you would let him partake.

Can you expand that doctrine to include no Baptism for women? There is no such thing as a conservative Lutheran. How does one conservatively believe in infant baptism, and has a hierarchy and elder form of government, ignoring the concept of the local church. If Lutherans, Methodists, Episcaps, and Presbys took the trouble to break away from the Catholic Church, why do you continue their unbibical practices like infant baptism and a hierarcy government? Why do you continue forms of closed communion like the Catholics? Why do you require a communicant's class or some other type of indoctrination to join a church when the Bible clearly teaches against it? What is your views on election, free will and eternal security and how has that changed from Catholic doctrine?

Before you make a thread challanging those of the Baptist faith on how they administer communion, when Baptists did not come out of the RCC, then maybe you should get your own basics straight, because you cannot seem to let go of old Catholic chants and rituals. By the way, the Lord's Supper is administered by the local church, not a bishop or presbyter.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Ok, all my Baptists and evangelical friends. Since I'm not a pastor or theologian, I am going to do some studying and then...I'LL BE BACK...on this subject!!!

Michael Wren, how did you like my "its from the pit!" line. I heard that alot growing up as a fundamentalist. I hadn't seen it for over 20 years until I saw it in some of your comments.

Oh...they brought back memories...not good ones...but they did bring back memories!

You're free to use it, of course. I don't like to use it and don't make a habit of using it -- unless it's true.

I think your problem is that you grew up as a fundamentalist. I did, too, and I wanted to get far away from it after I got grown. But I found there were just as many errors elsewhere. I also discovered that I could hold onto cherished Baptist/Anabaptist principles without being a fundamentalist - or a liberal. That's why I butt heads with so many here -- they don't know what to do with me. I don't fit neatly into any category.

But on this issue, I am firmly in agreement with Baptists of all camps here.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

This is the number one thread for the ridiculous in BB history. The Bible is very explicit about who is not qualified to partake in the Lord's Supper. Scripture commands each person to examine himself worthy to partake, and gives serious penalities who take communion friviously. This could include a grudge against another person, using the Lord's Supper as a party, or rampant, unrepentant sin.

Where do you get off adding a requirement not there? Someone's gender is a new qualification? An example of someone who should be denied the Lord's Supper, if you want a valid example, is one of your pristine church members that has not darkened the door for decades, and shows no evidence of living a life for Christ. My guess is that if some of the members on your roll did show up after years of absence on communion day, you would let him partake.

Can you expand that doctrine to include no Baptism for women? There is no such thing as a conservative Lutheran. How does one conservatively believe in infant baptism, and has a hierarchy and elder form of government, ignoring the concept of the local church. If Lutherans, Methodists, Episcaps, and Presbys took the trouble to break away from the Catholic Church, why do you continue their unbibical practices like infant baptism and a hierarcy government? Why do you continue forms of closed communion like the Catholics? Why do you require a communicant's class or some other type of indoctrination to join a church when the Bible clearly teaches against it? What is your views on election, free will and eternal security and how has that changed from Catholic doctrine?

Before you make a thread challanging those of the Baptist faith on how they administer communion, when Baptists did not come out of the RCC, then maybe you should get your own basics straight, because you cannot seem to let go of old Catholic chants and rituals. By the way, the Lord's Supper is administered by the local church, not a bishop or presbyter.

I agree. Good post.

 

[OldRegular]

Actually, we do.

Judges 3 relates Ehud's visit to King Eglon. Eglon was in an upper room, when Ehud entered. It's widely believed that the upper room was his rest room. He was alone and the door was locked.

I Samuel 24:3 tells us that Saul went into a cave to "cover his feet."
Every translation newer than the KJV translates it as "relieve himself."

The Bible often uses euphemisms for bodily functions and other private activities.

Since this thread will soon be closed, thought I'd clear up a thing or two.

:thumbsup:Thanks Tom. I had forgotten that! :thumbsup:

If you are anywhere close to Lone Oak, Ky. watch out for S/N!:smilewinkgrin::tonofbricks:

 

[mandym]

Actually, we do.

Judges 3 relates Ehud's visit to King Eglon. Eglon was in an upper room, when Ehud entered. It's widely believed that the upper room was his rest room. He was alone and the door was locked.

I Samuel 24:3 tells us that Saul went into a cave to "cover his feet."
Every translation newer than the KJV translates it as "relieve himself."

The Bible often uses euphemisms for bodily functions and other private activities.

Since this thread will soon be closed, thought I'd clear up a thing or two.

Having been to Asia I know all to well that the "bathroom" is in the upstairs room. I specifically mentioned the toilet not just bodily functions. Nothing here to clear up.

 

[reformed_baptist]

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.

err...by definition if something isn't mention in the bible it isn't scriptural!

 

[Walter]

err...by definition if something isn't mention in the bible it isn't scriptural!

Then, the Trinity is not scriptural. Plain & simple!