Baptism, Prerequisite to Communion?

Kiffin,
I read the confessions in context. A couple don't mention baptism at all, let alone water baptism, let alone baptism as a salvific act. You seem to be clouding the issue friend. You keep making arguments against accusations no one is stating. No one is saying people should refuse baptism. Not one person has said that. I am speaking of the recent convert who has not undergone baptism yet but has the opportunity to come to the Lord's table. There seems to be no Scriptural reason they cannot partake since they can memorialize properly due to their conversion. The honus is on you to show from Scripture why conversion is not enough to come to the Lord's table.

 

rlvaughn and Kiffin,
Interesting how some define what is open, close, and closed communion. I fall into the middle. I do not require someone to be a member of my own local church. However, I do require them to be a believer in Christ, and if they have been baptized, they must have been baptized by immersion. At the present, there are no believers who would not fit that requirement in the church I serve. The only circumstance where a non-baptized believer may partake is if they have not had sufficient opportunity to be baptised. If they refuse baptism, they may not come to the table. Hope this clears some things up.

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

rlvaughn wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think Baptists need to understand more of the history of their theology, and read more works by our Baptist forefathers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely. But as you said, we must not blindly accept their theology as though it doesn't have to pass through the test of Biblical fidelity.

 

While Acts does mention conversion and baptism closely, scant little is mentioned relative to time between the two. There are instances (Such as Phillip & Ethiopian eunuch) where the two may have happened the same day, but other places are not as descriptive.

By the way, this does bring up the question of how long do we test a convert before baptism. In America, we don't wait long to immerse a new believer. In other countries, the wait is much longer. For instance, in Russia, a new convert must wait from 6 months to a year to be baptized. Why? They wan't to test the sincerity of the faith and see if the conversion is genuine. And these are Baptist churches. So are they wrong? It's worth discussing.

 

I too believe that water baptism should be required to participate in the observation of the Lord's table.

A person should not even consider themselves a Christian unless they have been baptized.

 

Bro. Tom,

Thank you for clarifying your view. All the confessions do mention baptism,

The Schleitheim Confession of Faith (1527 Anabaptist Confession)"...shall be united
beforehand by baptism in one body of Christ which is the church of God"

Ridemann’s Rechenschaft (1540 Anabaptist Confessiom) "...Whoever has not been called by one God to one faith, to one baptism to one Spirit, to one body, with all the children of God's church, cannot be made [into] one bread with them, as indeed must be done if one is truly to break bread according to the command of Christ."

Thomas Helwys Confession 1611
in the outward supper which only baptized persons must partake.."

1646 London
"...who upon profession of faith, ought to be baptized, and after to partake of the Lord's Supper. "

The Catechisms also continue this theme. We often put our modern lingo to think they are referring to Spirit baptism but generaly as a rule when the Reformation Anabaptists or early Baptists spoke of being baptized into Christ they were speaking of water baptism. Even Mt 28 the better translation is not "baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" but "baptizing them INTO the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" In other words Baptizing was like a sealing of a covenaant and not just a naked symbol.

The waiting period for baptismal converts is a reaction to the easy believism so prevalent today. Unfortunately a waiting period has no Biblical basis. All converts in Acts were baptized immediately. This means a better presentation of the Gospel than just the Roman Road. If we are to follow preaching Acts 2:38 as Peter preached then Baptism should come as quickly as possible. The Russian churches are wrong for in all cases in the New Testament baptism is given immediately to converts. We cannot correct one error (Easy believism) with another (Withholding the sacrament). Instead we must preach a Lordship salvation and not the Get Out of Hell Free insurance salesman gospel that sadly has corrupted so many Baptist churches today.

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

Roadrunner do you believe that you're not saved until you are baptized in water?

One thing that has been pointed out and needs further investigation is the time period between public profession of faith and baptism. For times sake lets determine that to be when the local church is aware of the individuals salvation. From that point how long does it take before baptism takes place?

Many here (even those who won't let the unbaptized partake communion) have problems with 'easy believeism' walk the aisle, repeate after me, pwang you are saved lets get you dunked.

So seriously what steps if any does your church take with a new convert between the time they profess faith and when they get baptized? Some pastoral counseling, a discipling class, an explanation fo the BF&M any of this or none?

If it is a significant time period how can you explain to the new convert that when Jesus said 'this do in remembernce of me' He didn't mean them.

 

rsr, et al,

No church/pastor is responsible for "policing" the Lord's Supper. Imagine having to carry a photograph of your baptismal experience when you venture away from the church where it was performed? Pastors are obligated to give a warning that those who do not "belong to Christ" should not partake.

My position on this issue (Michael Wrenn will faint) is that one can "belong to Christ" and not be baptized. They are in a state of disobedience regarding baptism, but then we are all in a state of disobedience about something! If one is indwelt by the Holy Spirit (and I do believe that precedes baptism), then one can and should regularly partake in the Lord's Supper. They should also pursue being baptized.

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: John Wells ]

 

Bro Wells,

The Pastor and the Church has every right to warn those who should not take of communion (1 Cor. 11:27-29) and self examination is a requirement. The Church is the custodian of the Lord's Supper in that it is a Church ordinance. A unbaptized person has not yet professed faith in Christ. That is done in Baptism.

If it is a convert who is waiting to be baptized it is still not proper for them to partake though I do undertstand why he may be allowed by some churches. If it is a child who has recently been converted but has not been allowed to be baptized by parents because they are not sure they are mature enough then if they are not mature enough to be baptized they certaintly are not mature enough to discern the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Holy Supper. For one who refuses to be baptized, they must be viewed as no better than Judas in that they show unrepentance.

I think there is a danger when it is said we have no right to "police" the Lord's Supper. Baptists in the mid 1800's became just as careless regarding the Lord's Supper and Baptism and thanks in part to J.R. Graves and the Landmark movement this was remedied somewhat though taken to a little extreme(NOTE: I am not a Landmarker but do respect Graves attempts at Reformation).

I do think the next step is to accept people as members who are unbaptized or paedebaptized and thus see a total abandonement of the Baptist faith. While none on this boards may not be for that -What we do in moderation, the next generation may do in extremes.

 

Kiffin,
Not all cases of conversions in Acts mention an immediate baptism after conversion. Some do (Acts 8:38; 16:33). In some cases, the text states such (Cf. Paul's conversion) or the text makes no time distinction (Cf. Acts 2:41; 8:13, et. al.).

I agree with you on "easy believism" and how detrimental it is. It is interesting to note that the early church probably did not have the problems we have in this instance today, particularly in the early stages of the book of Acts. Obviously, they did have them later on.

I don't know that I'd wait as long as Russian and other baptists do to baptize a new believer, but their motives are understandable. I know of some Reformed churches that do the same thing. All Baptists typically have some sort of waiting period for a new convert to receive baptism. I don't know of any who baptize immediately, as in "converted at 5:00, baptized at 5:05". You typically have to wait a few days to a few weeks. Hopefully, in the interim, there is testing, discipling, mentoring, and the like in order to see that the person's calling and election are sure. Most of the quickie baptisms I have seen have been the kind of folks who never darken the door of a church again or never exhibit Christ-like character. Simply an observation that may be limited to my experience.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:
Roadrunner do you believe that you're not saved until you are baptized in water?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


RR- No, I don't believe baptism is essential to salvation, but I believe that people who refuse baptism are not true Christians.

 

Michael,

With all due respect whether the Salvation Army or Quakers agree with me or Baptist confessions is irrelevant to me. They are not part of our heritage and their impact contrary to what you say on society as a whole has been minor in comparison to Baptists are other Protestant bodies. The General Baptists as well as the Particular Baptists viewed the Quakers as kooks and the Salvation Army primary sucess has been charity work. I know of no one who is a member of either of these groups whose opinions of theology mean absolutely nothing to me.

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

kiffin: A unbaptized person has not yet professed faith in Christ. That is done in Baptism.

Let me clarify if I understand you correctly. Based on:

Romans 10:9 (ESV)
9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

"Confess with your mouth" is the volitional part of faith. This is the deep personal conviction, without reservation, that Jesus is that person’s own master or sovereign. This phrase includes repenting from sin, trusting in Jesus for salvation, and submitting to Him as Lord.

Matthew 10:32 (ESV)
32 So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven,

Let me ask you this: We first take care of the things above in our heart and mind in prayer with God. If done right, the person will be asked if he/she has done these things and will publicly acknowledge so "before men" during their baptism. When is the person saved? When they "confess" to God, or when they "confess" to men? Or, as it sounds like you are proposing, after they have done both?

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: John Wells ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tom VolsThe only circumstance where a non-baptized believer may partake is if they have not had sufficient opportunity to be baptised. If they refuse baptism, they may not come to the table. Hope this clears some things up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks, friend, for clarifying this. I misunderstood you. I still do not agree with your position, but I initially thought you were arguing for completely unrestricted communion as regards baptism. I think I can see a certain logic in your position - that in the first case a person has not had opportunity, but in the second case the person has refused obedience. Am I understanding correctly that you are saying any believer poured on or sprinkled is a non-baptized believer?

I am starting a topic on the connections between open communion and open membership, as I think that discussion would lead too far from what Michael intended with his original post. I am also thinking of starting one on the time element between conversion and baptism. That, IMO, is very relevant to the discussion of whether baptism is prerequisite to the Lord's supper, and to Tom's view on 'sufficient opportunity', but it can probably stand as a topic on its own.

 

The two above mentioned topics have been started in the Baptist Theology and Bible Study forum: "Open Communion - Open Membership" and "The 'Urgency' of Baptism."

I have been mulling over some things said in this discussion and have decided this is a strange logic - a person should wait perhaps weeks before observing the ordinance of baptism, maybe even going through some type of inspection or training, BUT a person should NOT wait on anything before observing the ordinance of the Lord's supper (and it seemed the majority consensus in this discussion that the church would have no right "inspecting" one before observing communion). Is this consistent??

 

rlvaughn wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Am I understanding correctly that you are saying any believer poured on or sprinkled is a non-baptized believer?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct. They have not been baptized Biblically. Immersion is the only Biblical method of baptism.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I have been mulling over some things said in this discussion and have decided this is a strange logic - a person should wait perhaps weeks before observing the ordinance of baptism, maybe even going through some type of inspection or training, BUT a person should NOT wait on anything before observing the ordinance of the Lord's supper (and it seemed the majority consensus in this discussion that the church would have no right "inspecting" one before observing communion). Is this consistent??
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not what you assert. If someone is proceeding with baptism, but the time has not been scheduled yet, and the opportunity for Lord's Supper observance comes in the interim, I would not prohibit that person from observing it (All things being equal, of course; their fitness and examination being sound). And I certainly do not agree with the notion that the pastor nor the church has no right to teach examination and proper administration of Lord's Supper.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not what you assert.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Brother, I didn't really have you in mind, though the close proximity of posts may have made it seem so. I do think I understand your position and see it as fairly consistent, though not agreeing. The inconsistency of postponing one ordinance (baptism) and rushing the other (communion) was just something on which I thought based on a number of posts I read. I'm don't think anyone in particular said that all in one place.