MUST A Christian Be Baptised Before Can Observe Communion?

[DHK]

So where in scripture does it say directly that The Lord's Supper and who it is administered to is a matter of soul-liberty?

Each epistle written to a local church was different. Each had different problems. Each church was different.
Likewise each church that Christ addressed in Revelation 2 and 3 was different one from another. He praised them for their good and condemned them for their error. They were different one from the other. They were not clones of each other. (contradicting RCC teaching). They had their own autonomy and independence, and thus their own soul liberty.

Just as every local church must decide on what standard of music they are going to adhere to, what standard of dress they will impose on members or leadership, if grape juice or actual wine will be used, or even if drinking of alcoholic beverages is right or wrong.
Each church must also decide if their communion is closed, close, or open.
Closed: Only the baptized members of the church may partake.
close: Only members of churches of like faith and order may partake (almost always must be baptized).
Open: Open to any believer

Most of the churches I have been in practice "close" communion: where churches of like faith and order may partake. They must be baptized. Why? Because a person who refuses to be baptized is living in a state of continual rebellion against God. Baptism is the first step of obedience in the Christian life. As long as you will not be baptized you are disobeying God.

What happens when we partake of the Lord's Supper?

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. (1 Corinthians 11:27-30)

The warning is there in verse 28. Examine yourself. If you are guilty of any sin do not partake, and that includes not being baptized. The church at Corinth were abusing the Lord's Supper. The Lord judged them. The judgment, according to verse 30, resulted in some being weak, some being sick, and some being dead!

This is one of the most important services of the church. It is not to be treated lightly.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

So where in scripture does it say directly that The Lord's Supper and who it is administered to is a matter of soul-liberty?

That sounds like The RCC or our federal government(no offense intended); the assumption of all authority by a governmental or church entity by default. All authorities not given to the church are the individual's by default. As a priest in the royal priesthood, my accountability is directly to God. The regenerate soul has the liberty given by the regeneration & indwelling of the Holy Spirit. By the "new and living way" the need for human priests & priestly churches has been eliminated. The purpose of the church is not as a conduit to God through the rules & means of a religious organization. The church that usurps the individual priesthood of the believer has stepped outside its Biblical bounds & placed itself in a dangerous position; between God & His own.

Scripture says, "let a man examine himself" not let THE man examine the congregation.

Heb 10:19-21 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having an high priest over the house of God"

2 Corinthians 5:10, 1 Peter 2:9,

 

[annsni]

I'm not aware of any Baptist church that restricts communion to unbaptized believers.

My home church does. They have "open" communion (we pass the elements, one will choose for themselves whether they take it or not) but there is instruction prior to the passing of the elements and it is stated that communion is only for baptized believers. My daughter would not be able to take communion at our home church because of her not having yet been baptized. However, in at our new church campus, we state that communion is for all believers, and my daughter can take communion here.

ETA: My daughter is 8 and is a believer but has not yet been baptized. She will be when we can figure out the logistics of doing so with the new church plant/meeting in a hotel with no pool.

 

[Salty]

...ETA: My daughter is 8 and is a believer but has not yet been baptized. She will be when we can figure out the logistics of doing so with the new church plant/meeting in a hotel with no pool.

I'm sure Old Union Brother would be glad to come up - just show him a river and the baptism will commence - snow or no snow! :jesus:

 

[Jerome]

I'm talking about restricting communion to unbaptized believers.

I'm not aware of any Baptist church that restricts communion to unbaptized believers.

My home church does. . . .there is instruction prior to the passing of the elements and it is stated that communion is only for baptized believers.

Your home church restricts communion to baptized believers.

Jaigner mentioned restricting communion to unbaptized believers.

 

[freeatlast]

Well, you see, in the first century church, following Christ very well could mean your death. Today in the 21st century United States, that would certainly not be the case. How many false converts were there in the first century church? Yes, I'm sure they were there but it was a much smaller portion of people than we have today. I'd liken it to becoming a believer in Afghanistan - I don't think there are many false converts there. So in my belief, today's new "believers" are not all truly new believers. I think as ministers of the Gospel, we need to be sure to disciple the person for a time before they can be baptized. Additionally, our church has a bit of an issue in that we do not have a bapismal. So we've been open for 6 months and have a number of new believers but we need to figure out how to actually do the baptisms. The hotel that we meet in does not have a pool and none of the places that have pools would accomodate us. So I think we're going to approach another local church to see if we can use their baptismal.

Ann as usual you seem to have an excuse for falling short. Baptism in the scripture was never postponed. Goodness buy a horse watering trough or find an old bath tub. I know of one man baptized in a 55 gal barrel. If you held baptism up where it belongs and really wanted to baptize someone you would find a way. Also i can't tell you anything about the past of what percent of those making claims are real or false. I would point out that Paul felt that many in the Corinthian church was very possibly lost after writing to them. You can find that in 2Cor.

 

[annsni]

I'm sure Old Union Brother would be glad to come up - just show him a river and the baptism will commence - snow or no snow! :jesus:

There are no rivers nearby. We have LOTS of beaches, however - but the water temp right now is around 34*. Brrr!!

 

[annsni]

Your home church restricts communion to baptized believers.

Jaigner mentioned restricting communion to unbaptized believers.

Does Jaigner mean that they only will serve communion to unbaptized believers ("restricting communion to unbaptized believers) or that they restrict unbaptized believers (only baptized believers can partake)? In my home church, unbaptized believers cannot receive communion.

 

[annsni]

Ann as usual you seem to have an excuse for falling short. Baptism in the scripture was never postponed. Goodness buy a horse watering trough or find an old bath tub. I know of one man baptized in a 55 gal barrel. If you held baptism up where it belongs and really wanted to baptize someone you would find a way. Also i can't tell you anything about the past of what percent of those making claims are real or false. I would point out that Paul felt that many in the Corinthian church was very possibly lost after writing to them. You can find that in 2Cor.

Well, we'll disagree. I don't appreciate the "have an excuse for falling short" comment. Show me the verse that commands that we are to immediately baptize new believers then I will repent. But until then, your snide remarks just show you to be someone I'd rather not speak with. Time is too short to argue with fools.

 

[DHK]

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. (Acts 2:41-42)

1. They received the word (and were saved).
2. They were baptized.
3. They were added to the First Baptist Church at Jerusalem.
4. They partook in the Lord's Supper, after having been taught doctrine.

Notice the first three steps were all in one day.

 

[freeatlast]

Well, we'll disagree. I don't appreciate the "have an excuse for falling short" comment. Show me the verse that commands that we are to immediately baptize new believers then I will repent. But until then, your snide remarks just show you to be someone I'd rather not speak with. Time is too short to argue with fools.

Ann that is your choice, please feel free to follow it. You are simply way to liberal to carry on a constructive conversation. Acts 2:41-42 Example same day baptism.

 

[Salty]

Well, we'll disagree. I don't appreciate the "have an excuse for falling short" comment. Show me the verse that commands that we are to immediately baptize new believers then I will repent. But until then, your snide remarks just show you to be someone I'd rather not speak with. Time is too short to argue with fools.

Ann, I fully agree with you. Scripture does NOT require immediate baptism (of course I was just funning you in post # 24- but it wouldn't surprise me if Old Union did come!) You made an excellent case in your post (# 24). You said "in the first century church, following Christ very well could mean your death"
But in America many think they are a Christian simply because they live in a Christian family, attend church or some other works based thought.

Before I Baptize someone, I want to make sure that individual knows not only what they are doing, by WHY! And it takes time - I am in no rush for baptism. I would say that a new converts class should be a minimum 6 weeks - and a 13 week class would not be out of the question.

Would folks such as Freeatlast go into a synagogue to preach Jesus. Paul went into the synagogues and preached Jesus as Messiahs Why not do that now in the 21st Century- because Paul did not command us to do.

Bottom line - show me chapter and verse about immediate baptism.

 

[mandym]

That sounds like The RCC or our federal government(no offense intended); the assumption of all authority by a governmental or church entity by default. All authorities not given to the church are the individual's by default. As a priest in the royal priesthood, my accountability is directly to God. The regenerate soul has the liberty given by the regeneration & indwelling of the Holy Spirit. By the "new and living way" the need for human priests & priestly churches has been eliminated. The purpose of the church is not as a conduit to God through the rules & means of a religious organization. The church that usurps the individual priesthood of the believer has stepped outside its Biblical bounds & placed itself in a dangerous position; between God & His own.

Two different subjects but ok:

Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
1Co 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
1Co 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Not that this has anything to do with my question.

Scripture says, "let a man examine himself" not let THE man examine the congregation.

Well at least you finally made an attempt to secure your position with scripture, a weak one but none the less. Of course this is out of context.

Heb 10:19-21 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having an high priest over the house of God"

2 Corinthians 5:10, 1 Peter 2:9,

Not sure why you keep bringing up unrelated passages but you have more of them then you do of the actual topic of the op. Why is that?

So where does it say directly that the church cannot set boundaries for who it ministers the Lord's Supper to? You are holding the other poster to a standard you are not willing to hold yourself to.

 

[jaigner]

I'm not aware of any Baptist church that restricts communion to unbaptized believers.

Okay, just to make sure my statements are not construed to be heretical, I believe unbaptized believers should be allowed to partake, as do I believe that believing non-members should be able to partake, as well.

It is an issue of conscience.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

Two different subjects but ok:

Not sure why you keep bringing up unrelated passages but you have more of them then you do of the actual topic of the op. Why is that?

So where does it say directly that the church cannot set boundaries for who it ministers the Lord's Supper to? You are holding the other poster to a standard you are not willing to hold yourself to.

I disagree with the presupposition that the Church may set unScriptural boundaries. Read ALL the Scriptural references. Those who "have the rule" are under the rule of Scripture; much like our Constitutional Republic. When those who are "power" stray from the law, their rules are unlawful. Are you a liberal democrat? They like to take authorities not granted to them too based on the same line of reasoning.

Reread 1 Corinthians 5, communion is not listed there. This passage is referencing sinful behavior that is clearly condemned in Scripture. Perhaps you should take your own advice and not take Scripture out of context. Better yet, don't add to it.

 

[matt wade]

Before I Baptize someone, I want to make sure that individual knows not only what they are doing, by WHY! And it takes time - I am in no rush for baptism. I would say that a new converts class should be a minimum 6 weeks - and a 13 week class would not be out of the question.

6 to 13 weeks of classes before you can be baptized? Are you serious? All they need to know is that they are being baptized to show obedience to Jesus. It's that simple.

 

[annsni]

Okay, just to make sure my statements are not construed to be heretical, I believe unbaptized believers should be allowed to partake, as do I believe that believing non-members should be able to partake, as well.

It is an issue of conscience.

Thanks for clearing that up. I agree with you.

 

[jaigner]

Before I Baptize someone, I want to make sure that individual knows not only what they are doing, by WHY! And it takes time - I am in no rush for baptism. I would say that a new converts class should be a minimum 6 weeks - and a 13 week class would not be out of the question.

That's not a bad idea.

Let's not forget that just because someone is justified doesn't mean they immediately become mature enough to fully understand and process the need to be baptized. I believe I was regenerated at 7 years old. Even being so young, it was a dramatic shift in perspective for me. But I wasn't baptized for a number of years after, mostly due to my own immaturity. Basically, I was scared to get up in front of everyone (2000+ at the church I grew up in.)

It is no reason to deny communion to anyone.

 

[Tom Butler]

I think it's useful at this point in the discussion to point out that our views over access to the Lord's Table are not arrived at in isolation, regardless of which side you're on.

For me, my view has its origins in the definition of what a church is. I believe that the New Testament knows only of the local congregation. (I'll save the arguments supporting that view for another time).

I hold that Jesus established the local congregation during his ministry.

I hold that the Twelve were the material of the first church.

I hold that the ordinances were given to the local church, since they had them during Jesus earthly ministry, and there was only one congregation at the time.

I hold that the Great Commission was given to the first congregation, and then to its successors. Today, 2000 years later, the local church's marching orders are embodied in that Commission.

I hold that new believers are baptized into a specific congregation. The 3000 baptized on the day of Pentecost were added to the Jerusalem church.

Paul's first Corinthian letter was written to a local congregation, and he spend part of Chapter 11 castigating them for abusing the Lord's Supper, and instructing them on how to do it correctly----as a congregation.

Paul also said Jesus died for at least one local church--the one at Ephesus. For that reason, I hold that he died for East Baptist Church, Paducah, Kentucky, and for each my brothers and sisters who are members.

Finally, there is the matter of church discipline. Salty, in post #12, toward the bottom, raised the right question, so I won't repeat it here.

For these and other reasons, I hold that the Lord's Supper is for the members of the church observing it--closed communion.

Now, if you believe in the universal church, you'll likely be an open communion advocate. I'll let those of you who are U-churchers make your own arguments.

But now you know I didn't just grab closed communion out of the air.

 

[David Lamb]

Jerome wrote:

I'm not aware of any Baptist church that restricts communion to unbaptized believers.

Ann's reply included this:

My home church does. They have "open" communion (we pass the elements, one will choose for themselves whether they take it or not) but there is instruction prior to the passing of the elements and it is stated that communion is only for baptized believers.

There seems to be confusion between "baptised" and "unbaptised" here. Or perhaps different posters are using the phrase, "restricts communion to" in opposite ways.

I agree with Jerome on this one. I cannot imagine why any baptist church would restrict communion to unbaptised people. (I'm taking it that "restricts communion to" means the same thing on both sides of the Atlantic, that is, "says communion is only for.")