Communion

How about this, open communion with a strong warning.

 

Agreed, RLVaughn and Latreia. I guess that ano-
ther thing I don't understand, though, is the auda-
city (in my opinion) of someone telling another
that their baptism was invalid and must be redone,
if the same words and method were used in the
previous baptism, and the recipient felt that it was
legitimate. In my opinion, this assumes that only
those in the baptizer's church (or church organi-
zation) are the only true believers--one of the
understood signs of a cult.

Correct me if I am wrong: I can take it.

 

The only correction I would give, Abiyah, is that, in most cases, the valid baptism issue is not an issue of whether "the others" are true believers, but of whether they are a valid church organization. But again I would add that this is only a sidelight to this communion question. One does not have to insist that someone else's baptism is not valid to insist that baptism is prerequisite to communion.

 

Well, to look a person in the face and say their baptism is invalid is certainly daring.

But I suppose that sort of daring comes with conviction. I can't imagine any of us being that brazen on any topic (say, that Jesus is the Way?)without the solid conviction that we're right. Right?

So let's say that they are simply acting on their convictions about baptism. Let's accept heterms you use Abiyah. What is such aperson expressing?

No faith in the individual's faith? No, or else tehy would not offer them re-baptism at all.

No faith in the baptism they had undergone? No, or else they would not use the same words and mode etc.

No faith in the church/pastor that performed the baptism? That seems most likely.

Does that require that this be a cultish church? No. Nor des it require the church to beleive that it alone has the truth. It only needs to mean that they are convinced that the church you'd be coming from does NOT teach the truth.

Would you accept a baptism performed by, say, the JWs in your church? If not, where do YOU draw the line?

 

Okay. I cannot say I understand. I guess that
what I further do not understand is what the
baptizer's "heart condition" has to do with any-
thing. If the baptizee's "heart condition" was right,
is that not everything? Why should their baptism
have anything whatsoever to do with whether or
not the baptizer was in right standing?

Many ministers have fallen. I read here yesterday
of a Baptist pastor who was found to have had an
affair. Suppose, as has happened, that affair was
ongoing for five years, and in that time, he baptized
100 persons. Did he invalidate all these persons'
baptisms? Are they not legitimately baptized?

Then, again, pastors are also sinners. How, then,
according to this idea, can they legitimately bap-
tize, and how can they, as sinners, proclaim ano-
ther's similar baptism invalid?

My mind goes back to the priests. The Bible says
in their very service to our God, they broke the
Sabbath; in doing so, they served both our God
and the people. How could their work, then be
legitimate? Yet it was. So how can a sinner-
pastor declare that his baptism excels another
sinner-pastor's baptism? Again, this appears,
to me, to be cultish and proud.

And again, I can take correction.

 

"I guess that what I further do not understand is what the baptizer's "heart condition" has to do with any-thing. If the baptizee's "heart condition" was right, is that not everything? Why should their baptism have anything whatsoever to do with whether or not the baptizer was in right standing?"

It isn't their heart condition so much as their doctrine. Heart condition may indicate nothing more than sncerity. Sincere commitment to untruth is not a virtue.

That's why I always recommend examining a person's doctrine in the very basics. I don't expect people to be technical, but JWs would not pass the test. Jesus is God, not a god.

As a pastor you have to think of the whole flock too. A litle leaven leavens the whole loaf. Error, especially on something as vital as who Jesus is, can have a serious impact on a church. I don't think that being lax would be a virtue in the long run.

"Did he invalidate all these persons'
baptisms? Are they not legitimately baptized?"

No. That's why I limit it to doctrine.

"Then, again, pastors are also sinners. How, then, according to this idea, can they legitimately bap-tize, and how can they, as sinners, proclaim ano-ther's similar baptism invalid?"

Again, that's why I restrict it to doctrine (though if the pastor's behaviour were soething he also taught...)

I've kept it to pretty clear examples, cases where the line is relatively easy to draw. Do you draw he lines htere? Do you draw any lines? If so, are you cultish? I don't think so.

Pastors have the responsibility to care forhte whole congregation. They have to draw lines sometimes in order to protect the flock under their care. They do it as part of fulfilling their responsibility to the church. They have to try to use discernment. They aren't always going to get it right. Some will prefer to err on the side of caution(our baptism done our way, etc.). Others wil prfer to err on the side of trust (just come). I am in the middle. Personally I see both extremes as an abdication fo responsibility. In bth cases you don't have to bother discerning. The cautious approach can lead to harming of individuals seeking to join your church, to be one of your sheep. The open approach can lead to a great doctrinal or moral sicknes coming in to the church. I think the middle road, a case by case approach, is bnest. Its harder though and requires more work from the Elders and Pastor. But you have to balance things as best you can, and do so knowing that you'll have to answer for it someday.

To me this illustrates why it is so important to pray for your pastor. These balancing acts are not easy.

 

Thank you. I cannot claim to understand, but I
am trying. 8o)

 

So am I. Like I said, it isn't easy.

 

Until I read this thread I had never heard of the "close" communion. I thought there was just "open" to any Christian and "closed" open only to members of that church. Christians should always examine themsleves as to whether they are right with God but I see no specific command here. The Corinthians (from my understanding) were a rather rowdy bunch and had been partaking of the Lord's supper in a rather unChristian like manner and Paul was telling them to treat it in the manner of respect that it deserves. If it were a matter of who was "worthy" then that pretty much lets me out and pert near everbody else I know, too. Several posters have stated correctly that "unworthily" is an adverb telling "how" they conduct themselves and not their fitness. It is always closed to non-Christians but that decision is up to them. We can't do a background check on all those in attendance. People who claim to be saved but won't submit to baptism inspire no confidence in me whatsoever that they are saved so I have no problem excluding them.

 

I have actually heard of churches which do quart-
erly communions, and before a member may
partake, they must go through an interview with
the pastor; the pastor decides whether or not they
are worthy, and no one else may even be present,
other than the ones chosen.