MUST A Christian Be Baptised Before Can Observe Communion?

[Jerome]

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

Yes.

Jaigner has now basically said that he thinks a church should have communion with any believer, member or not, baptized or not.

So when he said:

there is no reason to restrict. . . .communion to unbaptized believers.

he may have been trying to say that

there is no reason to restrict communion to baptized believers

or that

there is no reason to exclude unbaptized believers from communion.


It is in keeping with his United Methodist Church's "Open Table" teaching.

 

[freeatlast]

While the scriptures do not suggest that the church should regulate the believers in regards to the table it does clearly teach that the believers are to regulate themselves in the area of the table and depending on what they choose it can bring sickness or even death so the table is a serious issue. That cannot be done unless they are correctly taught and before every taking of the table there should be some clear teaching on the matter including something about those who have not been baptized.
One could say that baptism replaces circumcision. While circumcision had no ability to save as baptism does not it is clear that they Lord felt that circumcision was a big deal when He was going to kill Moses for not getting circumcision.
I think that the church has taken baptism way too lightly and the excuses as to why it can be put off are so outrageous that it becomes a mockery to baptism and to God.
Those who come forward should be baptized on the spot. There is no command to try and weed out the true and the false. That is legalism and a god like mentality and shows that the preacher does not trust his own preaching. If that is the case get out of the pulpit!.
Every indication in scripture is that baptism was done immediately at profession, however if for some reason it is withheld then the person should not be forbidden from the table, but they should be told that since they have not been obedient in the first command they should wait in taking the table and leave it up to them to decide. That way anything that might fall on them is their responsibility as one is not officially part of the church until Baptized (Acts 2:41) and so I don't believe that they should take part in a church ceremony like the table, but it should be left to them after explaining the situation.

 

[WestminsterMan]

While the scriptures do not suggest that the church regulate the believers in regards to the table it does clearly teach that the believers are to regulate themselves in the area of the table. That cannot be done unless they are correctly taught and before every taking of the table there should be some clear teaching on the matter including something about those who have not been baptized.
One could say that baptism replaces circumcision. While circumcision had no ability to save as baptism does not it is clear that they Lord felt that circumcision was a big deal when he was going to kill Moses for not getting circumcision.
I think that the church has taken baptism way too lightly and the excuses as to why it can be put off are so outrageous that it becomes a mockery to baptism and to God.
Those who come forward should be baptized on the spot. There is no command to try and weed out the true and the false. That is legalism and a god like mentality and shows that the preacher does not trust his own preaching. If that is the case get out of the pulpit!.
Every indication in scripture is that baptism was done immediately at profession, however if for some reason it is withheld then the person should not be forbidden form the table, but they should be told that since they have not been obedient in the first command they might want to wait in taking the table and leave it up to them to decide. That way anything that might falls on them is their responsibility.

Perhaps the word "communion" itself should indicate something here. My understanding of communion is that it represents a body of Christians having a common faith and discipline. If a Church isn't sure that a person comming to the table holds to their common faith and discipline, then I can see why they would refuse them the sacred meal. Clearly, enforcement is a different issue and one which could arguably invalidate closed communion all together - especially in a church with huge numbers.

Just my thoughts...
WM

 

[jaigner]

Jaigner has now basically said that he thinks a church should have communion with any believer, member or not, baptized or not.

This is accurate. I don't see a convincing case against this argument.

 

[Brother Jeremy Slone]

I think the 5th Chapter of 1 Corinthians is as good as any argument for closed communion. 5:7-8 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. If a church excludes a member from its congregation will it then serve him the supper with out him being restored through repentance. :11 ...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.
Now as far as chapter 11 on self examine and taking unworthily, it is not to me an argument for open communion. I believe this is talking to a congregation that has seated its members, (those that have professed a hope in Christ and have followed him in batism as an outward expression of a burial of the old sinful man and following after the new man (spirit), to walk in newness of life) and that they discern the wine and unleavened bread as Christ's body and blood and this was the error of the Corinth church for they were taking it only for wine and bread to fill their stomachs. But as far as other Churches they may have what they want. There is a church for everything under the sun. But i have a conviction that I must follow and feel this is what scriptures teach on the matter.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

It is in keeping with his United Methodist Church's "Open Table" teaching.

Jaigner is Baptist, not United Methodist.

 

[Tom Butler]

May I chase a small rabbit here?

I'm wondering if we Baptists ought to reexamine our use of the word "communion" to describe our observing the Lord's Supper.

Where did it come from? Where is it mentioned by that name in the scriptures? Do we mean something different when we call it communion as opposed to what we mean when we call it the Lord's Supper?

When we observe it, with whom are we communing? Each other? The Lord?

I'm not trying to stir up any trouble here.............uh, well, I guess I really am.

 

[David Lamb]

May I chase a small rabbit here?

I'm wondering if we Baptists ought to reexamine our use of the word "communion" to describe our observing the Lord's Supper.

Where did it come from? Where is it mentioned by that name in the scriptures? Do we mean something different when we call it communion as opposed to what we mean when we call it the Lord's Supper?

When we observe it, with whom are we communing? Each other? The Lord?

I'm not trying to stir up any trouble here.............uh, well, I guess I really am.

Good question! Could it have been taken from the usage of Anglican and other liturgical churches having it as a completely separate serviced, which they call, "Holy Communion"?

The only bible reference I can think of is 1 Corinthians 10.16:

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?
​

But there, the word translated "communion" is far more often translated "fellowship" in the sense of joint participation. In other words, that verse is telling us what the Lord's Supper is, not ascribing it a particular name.

 

[Tom Butler]

Thanks, David, I had forgotten I Cor 10:16.

Brother Jeremy Slone makes a strong argument for closed communion in post #45. It is an outgrowth of church discipline. To disfellowship a member for flagrant sin, then allow him to take the Lord's Supper, makes a mockery of the ordinance. Same thing to allow one to participate in our Lord's Supper whom another church as disfellowshipped.

Paul, in I Cor 11:2 tells the Corinthian church to guard the ordinances. Open Communion is a total abdication of that responsibility.

For the Open folks, a question: are there any circumstances whatsoever when you would deny someone participation in the LS?

 

[freeatlast]

Thanks, David, I had forgotten I Cor 10:16.

Brother Jeremy Slone makes a strong argument for closed communion in post #45. It is an outgrowth of church discipline. To disfellowship a member for flagrant sin, then allow him to take the Lord's Supper, makes a mockery of the ordinance. Same thing to allow one to participate in our Lord's Supper whom another church as disfellowshipped.

Paul, in I Cor 11:2 tells the Corinthian church to guard the ordinances. Open Communion is a total abdication of that responsibility.

For the Open folks, a question: are there any circumstances whatsoever when you would deny someone participation in the LS?

The command is for us to judge ourselves in this matter, not the church. That being said if there is a sinning brother he should not be allowed to attend church at all and that would exclude any need for the church to try and be the communion police.
In fact with closed communion you sweep up even those who are qualified as when someone visits and that is clearly not biblical to reject them.

 

[revmwc]

The point of water Baptism is answered by Matthew in chapter 28: 18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Verse 19 is clear baptism must occur.
As far the Lord's Table Christ made it clear what it was about and who should partake.
Luke 22: 19And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

This do in remembrance of Me Christ said. The Lord's Table is a time of remembrance of what He did for us. When observed it should be done as a very special occasion. All sin should be confessed by anyone partaking of it. Who did Christ serve that night, His followers. Who should be allowed to partake those that are Christ. He made it clear in Matthew 28:20 those who have followed His commandments of which one was to be baptised. The other to Love one another as He loved us. It is a time of remembrance of the things He did for us in giving His body and shedding His blood to pay the penalty for our sins. No where in scripture will you find the command that the participants must be a member of a specific brand of church to partake. Paul made it clear that those who do partake must ensure that they are worthy, that means it isn't my place to determine that. But as a solemen sacred service which is a very rare thing these days those not worthy would realize their need for confession and fellowship with God before they partake of it. I rarely partake of the Lord's Table today, not because I am unworthy but because of the way it is conducted. It appears to me to be just soemthing we do because that what we are supposed to do, I even heard a guy comment after our Pastor concluded serving the Table following the morning service that he wanted two of the wafers and only received one, what are we coming too when we don't revernce the time. I have a hard time with a serving the Lord's Table after the regular morning service because their is no memorial no sacred time to ensure you are worthy, just conduct the normal service and then business as usaul serving the Table. I want this time to be a special and sacred time a time for the Family members the members of God family to reflect on what Christ did for us and then check to see that we are worthy to participate, that is the important thing, as often as ye do this do it in REMEBRANCE OF ME!

 

[Tom Butler]

The command is for us to judge ourselves in this matter, not the church. That being said if there is a sinning brother he should not be allowed to attend church at all and that would exclude any need for the church to try and be the communion police.
In fact with closed communion you sweep up even those who are qualified as when someone visits and that is clearly not biblical to reject them.

But the church (at Corinth) did, in fact, judge the sinning brother. It took a tongue-lashing from Paul for them to do it, but they did it. Denying him entry to the church services may solve the closed communion problem for you, but what about other churches? What if he goes to another church.

Or, what if this sinning brother, comes from another church to yours on the day you have the Lord's Supper? Let's say you're somehow aware of his flagrant sin. Do you deny him entry to the church? If you let him in, do you let him participate in the Lord's Supper?

What if you're not aware of this visiting brother's sin? Does that excuse the church from protecting the integrity of the Lord's table?

Why would one be willing to exercise judgment on a sinning member to the point of exclusion, but suspend judgment with regard to the Lord's Supper?

 

[freeatlast]

But the church (at Corinth) did, in fact, judge the sinning brother. It took a tongue-lashing from Paul for them to do it, but they did it. Denying him entry to the church services may solve the closed communion problem for you, but what about other churches? What if he goes to another church.

Or, what if this sinning brother, comes from another church to yours on the day you have the Lord's Supper? Let's say you're somehow aware of his flagrant sin. Do you deny him entry to the church? If you let him in, do you let him participate in the Lord's Supper?

What if you're not aware of this visiting brother's sin? Does that excuse the church from protecting the integrity of the Lord's table?

Why would one be willing to exercise judgment on a sinning member to the point of exclusion, but suspend judgment with regard to the Lord's Supper?

You did not read my post carefully. I did not say we are not to judge a sinning brother. I said; "The command is for us to judge ourselves in this matter, not the church." This matter was pertaining to someone visiting from another post. if you know they have been put out from another church then they should be put out in your church, but the table should never be withheld from anyone who is present. That is their own doing according to the text.

 

[Tom Butler]

Lest we get too far away from the OP, let me go back to Paul's admonition in I Cor 11:2, where he told the Corinthian church to "guard the ordinances."

Paul clearly is saying that the local church is the administrator of the ordinances.

So it is clearly the arbiter of who it will admit to its fellowship. That's why every Baptist church I'm familiar with requires candidates for membership to be baptized first. Any church which does not require baptism is the aberration, not the rule, and is out of the mainstream of Baptist practice.

And every Baptist church I'm familiar with also requires participants in the Lord's Supper to be a baptized believer. Those who don't are the aberration, not the rule.

So, there is an established principle that the church has the right to pass judgment who whom it shall baptize, whom it shall admit to membership, and whom it will invite to the Lord's table.

 

[annsni]

Can anyone give me clear evidence from Scripture that a believer MUST have been baptized to receive the Lord's Supper?

 

[revmwc]

Can anyone give me clear evidence from Scripture that a believer MUST have been baptized to receive the Lord's Supper?

Let me ask a few questions and this may determine it ok?

Did Christ in the great commission say we were to Baptize new believers?

If that is a command of Christ and one has not followed Christ command are they worthy to partake of the Lord's Table?

If you answer these it may help you know the answer.

 

[annsni]

Let me ask a few questions and this may determine it ok?

Did Christ in the great commission say we were to Baptize new believers?

If that is a command of Christ and one has not followed Christ command are they worthy to partake of the Lord's Table?

If you answer these it may help you know the answer.

Yes, we are to baptize new believers but in practicality, not all are baptized immediately upon belief. We have 7 new believers and are working on how to baptize them since we meet in a hotel with no pool. Do we prevent these from taking the Lord's Supper?

 

[revmwc]

Yes, we are to baptize new believers but in practicality, not all are baptized immediately upon belief. We have 7 new believers and are working on how to baptize them since we meet in a hotel with no pool. Do we prevent these from taking the Lord's Supper?

Every circumstance must be looked at, do they want to be baptized? Yes they want to follow the command, the opportunity to be is hindering them. Since they are willing to follow and can't then I believe they are worthy of partaking. Of course that is just revmwcology.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

Our doctrinal positions should be taken solely from Scripture; not from "the mainstream of baptist practice". Scripture condemns the holding of traditions as Biblical doctrine. It may be baptist, but that doesn't make it Bible.

 

[Tom Butler]

Yes, we are to baptize new believers but in practicality, not all are baptized immediately upon belief. We have 7 new believers and are working on how to baptize them since we meet in a hotel with no pool. Do we prevent these from taking the Lord's Supper?

Ann, in my view the answer is yes. Paul's comments on the Lord's Supper in I Cor 11 presumes that those participating are baptized members. We have no scriptural command, or example, of unbaptized believers taking the Lord's Supper.

We my also infer from Paul's comments on the sinning member in Chapter 5 that only members participate. And he told them not to eat with that sinning member, much less fellowship with him. My take is that the fellowship meals were also the setting for the Lord's Supper on occasion, so excluding him from the congregation would also exclude him from the meals, which would also exclude him from the Lord's Supper.