church membership and baptism

I don't get where this letter to this particular church means that this has to be the ordinance passed down thereafter. Paul was admonishing this particular church, not the "church".

The Lords Supper is supposed to be done by believers in remembrance of Him. The where and how are not specifically given.

 

Since Paul gave instructions for proper observance of the Lord's Supper to the congregation at Corinth, it is reasonable that he would not give a different set of instructions to another congregation. Included was the instruction that they come together as a congregation, that they be in one place, that they have no divisions among them when they observe the Lord's Supper.

The reason we find no instructions to the universal church is that it does not exist and there is no good reason for the existence of such an entity. Further, it can never come together as an assembly, nor come together in one place this side of heaven.

Even if one considers any Christian group part of the "univeral church," and a valid New Testament church (which I don't) then the "church" is divided on its face, thus rendering it imipossible to take the Lord's Supper in any congregation, since it is divided from other believers.

Why would a church invite to participate in the Lord's Supper someone whom they would not allow to be a member of their church without a clear testimony of salvation and scriptural immersion first? Why would they serve someone whom they would not allow to vote in their business meetings?

 

There is every kind of church under the sun out there is why we have closed communion. When a outsider comes in we don't know who they are or what they practice. Do they have women preachers for a start and the Scripture says to be ye a separate people. Communion is so sacred that we have a closed communion so we know who is taking it. Of course there are some judas along the way but its damnation to them. We believe God commanded us to keep a clean church and with open communion we would not know whether we were all in one mind and one accord or not. I know you can say that if you are saved then we all of the same family and that is true but unfortunately we won't know who all the saved are until we get to Heaven. We will not accept anyone else's baptism unless they are of our same faith and order. In others words in correspondence with us and have same articles of faith. We have a zeal about us to keep ourselves unspotted from the world and that means having a closed communion along with other things. We have our order and we believe it to be in accordance with the Scripture and if someone wants to take communion with us and feel God has saved them then we will hold up communion and baptize them and then we all take communion.

 

Communion is limited to the body of Christ because that was who the ordinace was given to. We do closed communion or limit it to baptized believers as they are the only ones who will remember the death and suffering of our savior. It would just be eating crackers and drinking juice to others.

 

A couple of other thoughts:

Paul wrote to the congregation at Ephesus concerning "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." If, as most Baptists believe, scriptural baptism is immersion of a believer only, then the unescapable conclusion is that any other kind of baptism (sprinking, pouring,) is not scriptural, thus invalid. So, too, is the baptism necessary for salvation. To invite them to the Lord's table is to invite the unbaptized, and very possibly the unsaved.

It is also to invite those who are divided from us. It is to accept more than "one baptism." It is to accept those who have union and fellowship with groups which teach heresy and have agreed with those heresies. It is to accept those who come from groups which are not true NewTestament churches.

This is not question anyone's salvation, only to be true to what we believe the scriptures teach about the responsibility of churches for whom Jesus shed his blood.

No one should be offended if they are denied a place at the Lord's table in a church of which they are not a member. They should not take it in the first place, and should be grateful that that congregation is making an honest effort at guarding the integrity of the ordinances given to that church by the Lord Christ himself. Who, by the way, restricted the first Lord's Supper to eleven people.

 

Who leaves it up to man to deny a fellow believer Communion? I hear your arguments...but I don't see where it is up to man to decide who is or who isn't a believer. There are many believers within a closed communion church who have no business taking it. Do you guys give surveys to your congregation asking them if there is unconfessed sin in their lives prior to offering it? If not...why not? This is no different than keeping a believer outside your four walls from partaking. This...to me...sounds very pharasaical.

 

Our membership and those invited are asked if they are all in peace and if so then they are seated to take the communion. Then they are all asked to examine themselves to see if they are worthy to take the communion and if any have ought against his brother of feels he/she is not worthy at that time to please sit back. A believer could be kept out if they felt unworthy of if they were not in peace with the church and each other.

We as leaders of the church are expected of God to keep a clean church and also keep order in the church. That is why every preacher could not be a Pastor for sometimes it is not too pleasent but has to be done.

 

We do basically the same where we take time to examine ourselves before taking the communion. Once, we had a member apologize to one of the deacons during this period. I don't know what it was about but I felt it must have been needed.

 

Webdog said;

I said in a previous post that to hold to closed communion is not to pass judgment on one's salvation. On the other hand, Paul admonishes the church at Corinth to pass judgment on the fellowship of a man who was having an affair with his father's wife. He told the Corinthians, with such don't even eat.

That's the Biblical basis on which I say that the churches, made up of human beings, have been charged with discipling and disciplining its members, and to deny fellowship to those who are disorderly, or guilty of flagrant unrepentant sin.

 

The quote is the premise of the original thread. In other words, can one be baptised without joining the church that administered the baptism. From that issue, two others evolved.

1. Can a person be a church member without being baptised? (Which has nothing to do with the above)

2. The same old arguement of closed communion vs. open.

There may be some type of stereotype that how one feels about one of the issues that the other two would fall in line. Probably one would say, if you believe in closed communion, then you believe one must be baptised to be a church member, and one cannot be baptised without joining the administering church. And, one could say that the opposite is true.

However, this is not true to me. One could make a very good argument for having to be baptised to be a church member, while at the same time arguing that one could be baptised without joining a church.

Enough has been written about communion on this board to fill a library, and no minds are going to be changed. It seems we get apples and oranges mixed up at times.

 

How do you know they were really men of God if they were just passing through?

 

Lotta truth in that Ann; I have known several so called preachers run off with a young woman. I have always preached that if a man is not on the Rock (Christ) there are two things that will get him, either "money" or a "woman". Seems like most women are sincere but not all, they to do wander. Of course, sometimes the younger woman is a sister in the church. There have been times in my ministry that some sister I thought would get too "friendly" and I would stay away from them. Just one tale on a "good" minister could destroy him for life, and there be no truth to it whatsoever so that is why a minister must be very careful. When you have to be around a sister, especially a young one, always try to have someone with you. Believe me, there are those among you who would love to destroy you.

 

Amen :thumbs:
This is how I've always seen it...we examine OURSELVES. For another sinful, human being to tell another brother in Christ they are not allowed to partake of Communion is wrong, IMO.