Do you have to be baptized to take the Lord's Supper?

[jaigner]

According to most (if not all) Baptist churches, yes.

But the answer as I see it is a resounding, "No!"

 

[agedman]

It seems to me that your position allows an individual to substitute his judgment for that of the church. Are you sure you want to carry that argument to its logical extreme.

Trust you and yours had a blessed Christmas!



Isn't individual's judgment is exactly the point of the argument?


Do all stand individually before Christ - believers for what they have done, and unbelievers for what they did not do?

The individual must be ultimately responsible.

When Paul states that some of those who partook of the supper unworthily were "asleep," it shows that the individuals were held accountable but not the assembly. When Paul warns that, if the assembly allows open publicly known and flagrant sin (such as in the 1 Cor. writings we shared) that is not expunged and shunned by the assembly, most certainly the assembly suffers.

Where is it ever indicated that the assembly suffers if one takes of the ordinance of LS unworthily? The assembly doesn't. The individual does.

What might be the problem with the extreme of this position?

Perhaps it would be wise to actually place in writing the items that God does hold the assemblies responsible.

False doctrine;
not adoring the Scriptures;
worshiping man, music, methods, programs, policy, politics, and idols of wood, stone, flesh, and other such things rather than God;
having a form of worship but no true worship;
proclaiming life knowing the assembly is dead in sin and excess;
being tepid as those who desire the gospel not to be offensive.

Perhaps I missed something that some might desire to add or clarify.

(See the Revelation for explanation of God's view of the assembly and what He holds as accountable.)

 

[agedman]

I based my comment on I Cor 5:11


My understanding is that the Lord's Supper was often observed at the same time of the fellowship meal. Paul speaks of it in chapter 11.

I neglected to remark on this part of the post.

No, Paul is not discussing the Lord's Supper in this chapter nor this verse.

He is addressing a known and flagrantly shameful sin that mars before the public the testimony of the assembly.

The person is put out of the assembly and shunned (no fellowship) and therefore that makes the Lord's Supper unavailable to the person and therefore a mute argument in support of guard-ship over the ordinance by the assembly. For if it were applied to the ordinance, then the person would be allowed to sit in the assembly's presence - which that person is not.

 

[Tom Butler]

I neglected to remark on this part of the post.

No, Paul is not discussing the Lord's Supper in this chapter nor this verse.

He is addressing a known and flagrantly shameful sin that mars before the public the testimony of the assembly.

The person is put out of the assembly and shunned (no fellowship) and therefore that makes the Lord's Supper unavailable to the person and therefore a mute argument in support of guard-ship over the ordinance by the assembly. For if it were applied to the ordinance, then the person would be allowed to sit in the assembly's presence - which that person is not.

So, what we have are two separate standards, one for membership and the other for observing the Lord's Supper. This is the logical extreme I had in mind.

We both agree that the church has the authority to disfellowship someone, the effect of which is to deny him access to the Lord's table.

If the individual is the sole arbiter of his right to the Lord's table, then that comes into conflict with the church's right to determine its membership.

This view would allow the offending member to demand the right to participate in communion, even though he is not welcome for fellowship.

It seems to me that one cannot have it both ways.

 

[JesusFan]

I think I'm correct that the majority of us see water baptism as a pre-requisite for membership in a local church. I don't know of any Baptist church of any stripe which allows unbaptized people to be members. If I'm right, then it doesn't make sense to invite an unbaptized person to the Lord's table.

Paul had this to say in I Cor 10:17:


Paul is clearly referring to the body as a local congregation. He reinforces this in 12:27 when he refers to the congregation at Corinth as "YE are the body of Christ."


So, to me, if we require one ordinance--baptism-- as the door to local church membership, but do not require it for access to the other ordinance--the Lord's table--this is a glaring inconsistency.

The arguments for each side hang on the question, Is the LS a Christian ordinance or a church ordinance? Your answer will determine how much access you will allow to the Lord's table.

(Psst. It's a church ordinance. Pass it on).

again though Tom, you take the position of there just being the local church assembly, which would fir the closed communion position, while those here like my tale Universal church position, so open communion!

NOT an issue to break fellowship over though, not an essential doctrine ALL must adhere to, so lets feel free to disagree!

 

[agedman]

So, what we have are two separate standards, one for membership and the other for observing the Lord's Supper. This is the logical extreme I had in mind.

No double standard at all.

The observance of the ordinances are a completely separate issue.

> Baptism and/or the Lord's Supper should never be considered providing automatic qualifiers resulting in church membership.

Membership in a local assembly requires a lot more weight be placed on a lot more issues by and upon the assembly than what the individual shows in baptism and the Lord's Supper.

For the assembly to accept a person, with the financial, political, emotional, educational ... support the assembly must extend to any family member, it requires the assembly to know the person personally and to have some history of the person's character and life choices.

The local assembly holds control over the membership/fellowship as Paul stated (1 Cor. 5). Guarding the membership from outside forces as well as internal rot is extremely important.


> Also, church membership should never be considered as automatic qualifiers for the worthiness of participation in the ordinances.

In my opinion, this is a reason some in the modern day members do fall ill, have serious personal problems, perhaps even die. Just as Paul through Christ indicated.


Along this line, Baptists extend "the right hand of fellowship" to those who come by "statement of faith." Who is to say that person has been baptized or been discharged by another assembly?

I realize that the pew sitters place faith in the leadership understanding (perhaps have privately validated) behind the reason one comes on statement of faith. Never the less, the fellowship is extended when the general assembly is assuming the person is worthy.

Yet, the same acceptance is not offered to the stranger who just happens to attend when the Lord's Supper is scheduled. Is not this a double standard - at least from the visitor's view?

Again, I would remind the readers that the Lord's Supper is highest fellowship with Christ.

It is not direct fellowship of member to the membership other than as a person examines their own life, living, and love and in so doing must deal with the personal sin and affronts made to both man and God before taking the elements.

Christ said we are to do this in "remembrance of Him." If there is broken fellowship in the assembly, that is a sin and someone(s) is/are unworthy to partake. If choosing to partake (unworthily) there are personal and individual repercussions.

We both agree that the church has the authority to disfellowship someone, the effect of which is to deny him access to the Lord's table.

If the individual is the sole arbiter of his right to the Lord's table, then that comes into conflict with the church's right to determine its membership.

How?

If the person is not allowed to "darken the door" of the fellowship, then they have no business being in attendance - even at a funeral, wedding, or any other gathering in which the membership has given approval or is in agreement. The person physically cannot be in the assemblies presence.

If the ousted person is determined to attend a service - whether the LS is to be held or not - the church may choose one of two options. Ask the person to leave suggesting that if they don't that force to remove that person is an option. If the assembly is non-violent thinking, the other option would be for the assembly to walk out leaving the person behind in the empty meeting place. The person could drink and eat to their heart's content, but the eating and drinking would not constitute the Lord's Supper. Or perhaps, just quietly not celebrating the LS.

This view would allow the offending member to demand the right to participate in communion, even though he is not welcome for fellowship.

It seems to me that one cannot have it both ways.

First, that person isn't a member - offending or not. All traces of their influence and membership have been removed.

Perhaps as a extreme example, that person comes in disguise so that the identity is unknown and the church has no knowledge the person attending is one shunned. Sounds ridiculous, but pretend it could happen. What then?

The church is not held accountable. The individual, unworthy in public sin and confirmed in unrepentant attitude by their hidden scheme, would still be accountable to God.

 

[agedman]

Tom,

I neglected to remark about "unworthy" being "unworthy manner."

A person is going to demonstrate (manner) when sin has blossomed and born fruit. They are knowingly self aware of being unworthy far sooner than then.

The ones who were asleep were full blown fruit glaringly sinful for all to see unworthy.

Because Paul said the word "some," it indicates that there were "some" who, though judged and reaping the benefits of being unworthy yet partaking, had not yet reached the place that God would take their life.

We must all "examine ourselves" as honestly and carefully as Peter did, when examined by Christ, and made personal judgment of his own condition after the cross. At least Peter was humbly honest enough to admit he didn't love Christ the way Christ loved him.

Being humbly honest and without a crack (what sincere means) before Christ at the LS, moves the believer from unworthy to worthy.

 

[Tom Butler]

I think the unworthy manner Paul criticized in I Cor 11 shows the close relationship back then between the fellowship meal and the Lord's Supper.

I think the Corinthians were getting tipsy at the fellowship meal, and were mistreating the widows, eating like pigs and generally behaving boorishly. Then they had the gall to have the Lord's Supper on the heels of all that. On top of that, they were coming to the Lord's table with unresolved conflicts among them--which made the observance a sham in many ways.

That's how they were taking it unworthily. The adverb has nothing to do with their worthiness. They were not properly "discerning the Lord's body."

 

[webdog]

If failing to be baptized and observe the Lords Supper are both disobedience, why is it ok to allow further sin be denying the latter?

 

[agedman]

I think the unworthy manner Paul criticized in I Cor 11 shows the close relationship back then between the fellowship meal and the Lord's Supper.

Absolutely correct.

I think the Corinthians were getting tipsy at the fellowship meal, and were mistreating the widows, eating like pigs and generally behaving boorishly. Then they had the gall to have the Lord's Supper on the heels of all that. On top of that, they were coming to the Lord's table with unresolved conflicts among them--which made the observance a sham in many ways.

Again, absolutely agree!

That's how they were taking it unworthily. The adverb has nothing to do with their worthiness. They were not properly "discerning the Lord's body."

Not "discerning the Lord's body" is a sin. A personal sin. An affront to the holiness of God.

By that I find them not only unworthy in manner, but unworthy by sin.

Not all were involved in the excess, but the individuals that were were certainly punished.