-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
"Members Only Communion"?
- Thread starter JLBS13
- Start date
atpollard
Well-Known Member
... been there and seen that.
Sadly, that sin falls on the head of the mother and it is for the Pastor and "teaching elders" (biblical term since the title varies by church) to educate her. That the Father was not present to lead, speaks volumes: We live in "evil times" when there is no "fear" (reverential respect) of the Lord and everyone does what they think is right.
Still, it is God's place to judge and punish (God has ALL the facts) and our task is to LOVE as He loves.
If God is offended, God can handle it ... and if God is not offended, then who are we to be offended for God?
[Honestly, I have enough to do just cleaning up MY messes.]
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
I actually find that hard to believe. Just mouthing the words does not mean you understand what you are saying.
But even then the exception does not make the rule.
It seems that dad was there - but this happened a good 20 years ago - so all details are a bit fuzzy - but I will never forget how mom came up front to......
atpollard
Well-Known Member
It would be interesting to see if Benjamin Keach was really prepared to accept what he claimed. If a 4-year old (or 8-year old) really shows evidence of "salvation", then the church has no reason to withold baptism, membership ... and all that comes with membership. Are they prepared to allow the 8-year old to vote on church matters or hold any office that any other unmarried man might hold? If not, then on what BIBLICAL basis?
I am personally skeptical of children being baptized and taking communion, but if they present convincing evidence that they ARE the exception, then [imho] they are part of the LOCAL BODY ... a member of the church like any other.
Yes, he declared: "little Children who do believe in Christ, have an indubitable right to Baptism".
Reproof to y'all from no less than Charles Spurgeon:
https://www.spurgeongems.org/vols7-9/chs381.pdf
“We do not contend for the baptism of adults; we contend for the baptism of believers. Show us a child however young, who believes in Christ, and we gladly accept him”
https://www.spurgeongems.org/vols7-9/chs381.pdf
“We do not contend for the baptism of adults; we contend for the baptism of believers. Show us a child however young, who believes in Christ, and we gladly accept him”
“I will say broadly that I have more confidence in the spiritual life of the children that I have received into this church than I have in the spiritual condition of the adults thus received.” —Charles Spurgeon, “Jesus and the Children”
“If there were two enquirers before me now—a child and a man—and I received from each the same testimony, I should have no more right to distrust the child than to suspect the man! In fact, if suspicions must come in anywhere, it ought rather to be exercised towards the adult than in reference to the child who is far less likely to be guilty of hypocrisy than the man and far less likely to have borrowed his words and phrases!” —Charles Spurgeon, “Receiving the Kingdom of God as Little Child”
“If there were two enquirers before me now—a child and a man—and I received from each the same testimony, I should have no more right to distrust the child than to suspect the man! In fact, if suspicions must come in anywhere, it ought rather to be exercised towards the adult than in reference to the child who is far less likely to be guilty of hypocrisy than the man and far less likely to have borrowed his words and phrases!” —Charles Spurgeon, “Receiving the Kingdom of God as Little Child”
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
You have not shown anything different than what @atpollard and myself have said. If they can show that they understand what it means to believe in Christ Jesus for their salvation then of course they should be baptized.
But that is the sticking point which you seem to have missed. Do they understand what it means?
As Spurgeon rightly said
"We do not contend for the baptism of adults; we contend for the baptism of believers."
atpollard
Well-Known Member
I do not doubt that he would "baptize" children, and I know of several contemporary churches that baptize pre-teens who make a confession of faith. My question is this: in most churches, being baptized and attending the church is the criteria for "membership" and all "members" are entitled to vote on the budget, approve the new pastor and participate in other matters of "church business" ... so do you grant a baptized "child" the same rights as any other church member? Does the 8-year old ask questions on the new budget or vote on approving a missionary to be supported by the church?
Hmm...what do you think of the voting of Fundamentalists' young children as messengers being one of the tactics used in the Takeover of the Convention in the 1980s?
"June 24, 1985
Pre-Schoolers Register As SBC Messengers
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Reports of very youthful messengers at this year's Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting..."
"...according to Lee Porter, registration secretary for the convention...'75 to 100 children six years of age or younger' registered as messengers from their local churches to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Dallas June 11-13."
"Porter said the Dallas-area laypersons working in the registration line expressed to him their shock at the ages of some of the messengers being registered. He said, however, the registration of young children as messengers...'has been happening pretty regularly for several years'."
Kinda echoes Jesus' words.
I totally disagree with that action. Should be 18 to vote.
IN fact, I saw that happen first hand in Germany.
But first - a quick backstory
Emmanuel Baptist was a small Landmark IFB church
Only men age 18+ could vote- thus no women - no children
ZBC was a SBC church, w/out a pastor. (pastors wife was dying so they went Stateside)
A IFB (Bible Baptist Fellowship) missionary was in Germany temporarily - he was asked to
preach at ZBC - people like him - but could not become pastor because he had not attended
a SBC college or seminary. So he was fill in for several weeks. After a few weeks, he learned
about Emmanuel Bapt - He then started talking about getting EBC to join ZBC. A few weeks later,
they joined as individuals (not a merger). Then the fill in pastor got a handful of members of ZBC
on his side. Shortly later, there was a business meeting to change the constitution so he could be
pastor. Former members of EBC (Now ZBC members) voted - including women and children. At least
two children had their ballots written out by dad!
I know - I was there that night.
The parent is responsible for the child’s behavior and their own. If they were just looking for a snack, the chapter is clear that that is not snack time. I was taught that when I was little.
It should be a teaching opportunity (given that he should not have it, considering the character references he has been given, otherwise is a different discussion). Communion was one thing in my own growing up that made it clear to me that there was something different about me and everyone else in church taking communion. (How much truth is in this perception, only God knows) That I was not saved and communion participants were was correctly explained. It kept me from trying to take a snack for a while and gave me something to think about as often as it was observed.
Some Rando
New Member
We have completely divorced Communion from its Passover forebear that it was built upon.
Passover was both a meal of celebration and an opportunity for fellowship and instruction and teaching involving both food and ritualistic instruction.
Instead of the Passover being our prototype, the Catholic Mass is our prototype.
No meaningful fellowship or interaction between church members is engaged in. It is usually hyper-individualistic. It is silent introspection and personal navel-gazing that focuses entirely upon the self and no one else around you.
I believe the lessons imparted in Communion/ the Lord's Supper are only really both accomplished in the fellowship of serving others in an actual meal, and in the ceremonial breaking of bread and taking of the cup.
Put differently, I believe it makes its most sense if it is coupled with an actual fellowship meal as the Passover was. Some Baptist forebears and Baptist-adjacent groups like Dunkard Brethren do this.
Similarly, while I am not one, I see the wisdom in the foot-washing ceremonies of Free-Will Baptists. The focus becomes not just the self, but, specifically others in the local body and their needs.
Baptism is about identification with Christ and his gospel.
Communion is about identification with his body the Church.
I think it unfortunate that we share with each other and give to one another and eat with one another at "Dinner on the grounds".
And then focus entirely upon ourselves and individual relationships in the hyper-individualized (and usually silent) "Lord's Supper."
Whilst I do not agree entirely with everything in this book, I found this to be an enlightening book on what Communion was meant to be:
From the explanation in Amazon:
This book, The New Passover: Rethinking the Lord's Supper for Today, traces the way the Christian churches changed the simple meal of the New Passover into an esoteric theological public ritual. Luther and the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformers abolished the Mass and restored the bread and wine to the people but they only half completed the task. They recognized that Jesus intended the Eucharist to be a Supper but there was nothing in their liturgies to satisfy physical hunger. This book argues that the Last Supper was a Passover meal and that churches today need to celebrate the Lord's Supper Passover style in the context of an evening meal with ordinary bread and wine, in small groups of believers only and in houses and homes. It is to be a joyous celebration meal providing spiritual strength, fellowship, thanksgiving, and remembrance.
Passover was both a meal of celebration and an opportunity for fellowship and instruction and teaching involving both food and ritualistic instruction.
Instead of the Passover being our prototype, the Catholic Mass is our prototype.
No meaningful fellowship or interaction between church members is engaged in. It is usually hyper-individualistic. It is silent introspection and personal navel-gazing that focuses entirely upon the self and no one else around you.
I believe the lessons imparted in Communion/ the Lord's Supper are only really both accomplished in the fellowship of serving others in an actual meal, and in the ceremonial breaking of bread and taking of the cup.
Put differently, I believe it makes its most sense if it is coupled with an actual fellowship meal as the Passover was. Some Baptist forebears and Baptist-adjacent groups like Dunkard Brethren do this.
Similarly, while I am not one, I see the wisdom in the foot-washing ceremonies of Free-Will Baptists. The focus becomes not just the self, but, specifically others in the local body and their needs.
Baptism is about identification with Christ and his gospel.
Communion is about identification with his body the Church.
I think it unfortunate that we share with each other and give to one another and eat with one another at "Dinner on the grounds".
And then focus entirely upon ourselves and individual relationships in the hyper-individualized (and usually silent) "Lord's Supper."
Whilst I do not agree entirely with everything in this book, I found this to be an enlightening book on what Communion was meant to be:
The New Passover: Rethinking the Lord's Supper for Today: Scotland, Nigel: 9781498218139: Amazon.com: Books
The New Passover: Rethinking the Lord's Supper for Today [Scotland, Nigel] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The New Passover: Rethinking the Lord's Supper for Today
www.amazon.com
From the explanation in Amazon:
This book, The New Passover: Rethinking the Lord's Supper for Today, traces the way the Christian churches changed the simple meal of the New Passover into an esoteric theological public ritual. Luther and the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformers abolished the Mass and restored the bread and wine to the people but they only half completed the task. They recognized that Jesus intended the Eucharist to be a Supper but there was nothing in their liturgies to satisfy physical hunger. This book argues that the Last Supper was a Passover meal and that churches today need to celebrate the Lord's Supper Passover style in the context of an evening meal with ordinary bread and wine, in small groups of believers only and in houses and homes. It is to be a joyous celebration meal providing spiritual strength, fellowship, thanksgiving, and remembrance.