Baptism and Lords Supper?

Are you suggesting a Christian who is not a member of a specific local church is living in disobedience?

Is church membership (as defined today) something the church has added to the NT teachings? I am not saying it is a bad thing. I am just questioning the validity and logic of the statement obedience includes membership.

Follow this statement out logically -- at what point does local church membership become necessary in order for a Christian to be "obedient"? Immediately? 5 days? 5 months? 5 years? What is the cut off?

I am not talking about baptism here. I am talking about membership. There are plenty of baptized believers who are not members. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, a Christian who is not a member of a local church is living in disobedience.
No, it has not been added to NT teaching. It is the NT norm.
Church membership becomes a matter of obedience at the same time baptism does since baptism is the rite by which one is initiated into the membership of the church.

 

No, it was instituted at a meeting of the first church by its pastor.

 

I would disagree that the question of Judas partaking the Lord's supper is irrelevant to your point. Your point that I was addressing is your attempt to trump the opposing views on the basis that theirs is an "interpretation" and yours is not. But the fact that you believe that the Lord's supper is for all believers does require some interpretation. Either Judas partook of the supper or he did not. That in itself requires interpretation. If he did, it requires further interpretation as to why other unbelievers did not partake. It also requires interpretation in I Cor. 11 (as I noted in my post above). Please understand that I am not particularly addressing the open vs closed issue, but the issue of whether your view is "without interpretation".

 

No argument here. He does not however say it must be done with xxx amount of time.

Not the point we have been addressing. My first post alluded to the fact that the faith of those who REFUSE baptism must be examined.

The issue is whether it is UNBIBLICAL or WRONG to partake in communion prior to baptism / church membership.

Agreed. However a person "yet" to be baptized (due to whatever reason except obstinate refusal) does not qualify as "disobedient".

Eg., a child makes what appears to be a genuine life commitment to Jesus Christ but has not been baptized yet. Perhaps the parents want him/her to get baptized when she understands what he/she is doing more completely and is ready. Or perhaps he/she is frightened of the water. Is the child living in disobedience? Of course not. Is the child disqualified from participating in the LS? I can't find biblical evidence that disqualifies the child.

Baptist tradition has led to many modern practices.

Perhaps your conclusion is not that simple.

 

In my opinion, you overstep your bounds here of what can be proven biblically.

Membership in a local church is a great thing. Is it necessary in order to be "obedient"? Not in my opinion. Is it wise? Of course.

Baptism symbolizes primarily one's identification with Jesus Christ - the body of Christ. There is a secondary element of identification with a local assembly of believers but this secondary element is not essential for "obedience".

Many churches require x weeks of membership classes before membership is allowed. Does that mean a Christian is living in disobedience those weeks?

Some people come to faith in Jesus Christ without the involvement of any local church. It is known that people in other countries have come to faith in Christ with no knowledge of a local church to join or pastor to baptize them. Does that mean that person is living in disobedience?

I am in favor of baptism as soon as possible (for adults in particular).
I am in favor of church membership. We believe so strongly in it that we have a covenant of membership you must accept.

But are both of these two things necessary for a genuine believer to participate in the Lord's Supper? Not necessarily.

If a church chooses to go this route, that is great. But they do so on the basis of their own tradition or belief and not the clear teachings of Scripture (which by the way is not necessarily a bad thing -- we simply have to recognize it for what it is).