SBC poll (and anyone else using the BFM2000): Do you practice this principle for the Lord's Supper?

[Greektim]

The BFM2000 says of baptism (Article VII), "Being a church ordinance, it [baptism] is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper." [underlined added]

For those in the SBC and others who use the BFM2000 (or something w/ a similar statement), do you have this practice and made explicit in your church? Do your pastors before administering the elements give a note of who is expected or allowed to partake as according to the faith and practice of the church?

I've not enforced this in my church, but I plan on starting this Sunday. What I mean by that is that although I have read through the BFM2000, I never recollected that last part (to which I agree). Now, when I administer the elements and after my communion meditation, I plan on advising only those who profess faith in Jesus and have obeyed him in baptism may partake. I do not plan on slapping the bread or juice (wish it were wine) out of anyone's hand, however.

Do you do this?

 

[Baptist Believer]

Were any of those in the Upper Room for the initial celebration of Communion (Lord's Supper) baptized in the name and authority of Jesus? I suggest to you that they were not. I am confident that they probably received baptism at the hand of John the Baptizer, although no one was baptized by Jesus since He did not baptize (John 4:2).

I am loath to prescribe any restrictions to the Lord's table that are not made plain in scripture.

The table is intended for those who are active disciples of Christ, and those who are active disciples will certainly seek to be baptized, but there may be a short delay before it happens, or there may be a very special case where baptism is not feasible, but sharing in the Lord's table is.

 

[Reynolds]

The BFM2000 says of baptism (Article VII), "Being a church ordinance, it [baptism] is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper." [underlined added]

For those in the SBC and others who use the BFM2000 (or something w/ a similar statement), do you have this practice and made explicit in your church? Do your pastors before administering the elements give a note of who is expected or allowed to partake as according to the faith and practice of the church?

I've not enforced this in my church, but I plan on starting this Sunday. What I mean by that is that although I have read through the BFM2000, I never recollected that last part (to which I agree). Now, when I administer the elements and after my communion meditation, I plan on advising only those who profess faith in Jesus and have obeyed him in baptism may partake. I do not plan on slapping the bread or juice (wish it were wine) out of anyone's hand, however.

Do you do this?

You also going to enforce church membership? Its in the same article.

 

[Reynolds]

Were any of those in the Upper Room for the initial celebration of Communion (Lord's Supper) baptized in the name and authority of Jesus? I suggest to you that they were not. I am confident that they probably received baptism at the hand of John the Baptizer, although no one was baptized by Jesus since He did not baptize (John 4:2).

I am loath to prescribe any restrictions to the Lord's table that are not made plain in scripture.

The table is intended for those who are active disciples of Christ, and those who are active disciples will certainly seek to be baptized, but there may be a short delay before it happens, or there may be a very special case where baptism is not feasible, but sharing in the Lord's table is.

They can wait a couple of weeks to partake at the table. Unless someone is allergic to water, they can be baptised. Other physical reasons might justify an instance where we pretend we are Methodist for a minute and pour.

 

[Greektim]

You also going to enforce church membership? Its in the same article.

That has already been happening and pretty standard for baptist churches.

 

[Rob_BW]

We state that the Lord's Supper is for baptized believers, but then again it's not like we're doing a background check on our guests before we pass the plates.

And the membership vote occurs post baptism.

 

[Reynolds]

That has already been happening and pretty standard for baptist churches.

Not standard for any around here. I saw a survey somewhere that less than 10% of SBC churches enforce membership.

Anyway, you have members who are not baptised?

 

[rlvaughn]

Tim, I didn't vote in the poll, since we are neither SBC nor using the BFM2000. But I do agree that is what the BFM2000 means (I've heard some try to deny it), and I also agree with what it means.

 

[JonC]

I have not been in a SBC church that required membership in that church, but all that I've been in required baptism.

 

[Greektim]

The membership may be misleading. Baptism is required for membership. But it does not say, I do not believe, that membership is required for Lord's Supper. Just to clarify.

 

[Salty]

The BF&M in Article VII states " whereby members of the church"...

So is the "church" that individual local church (closed) or the church as the Body of Christ (See Article VI) (open communion)?

But to the op - YES, I do mention the requirements for partaking the Lords Supper. But, on the other hand, I will not "make a scene".
Rather, that would be a private discussion for later at an appropriate time.

Will mention this - several years ago - I was serving communion - mom took it (no problem) but then her three year old wanted the elements as well.
I put the plate up so he could not obtain them. After I went back to the front - mom comes up and gets the elements for her son.
I was dumbfounded - I was not the pastor -so I took no action - ----What would you have done in this situation?

 

[rlvaughn]

The BF&M in Article VII states " whereby members of the church"...

So is the "church" that individual local church (closed) or the church as the Body of Christ (See Article VI) (open communion)?

Though Article VI states, "The New Testament speaks also of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all of the redeemed of all the ages...," the church of Article VII is the local church. The context speaks of baptism being a prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and the Lord's Supper. I don't suppose anyone speaking of "the church" as "the Body of Christ" would think water baptism is prerequisite to that (well, at least not Baptists). And since baptism "is prerequisite to...the Lord's Supper" it does not have open communion in mind (since open communion does not require baptism).

It is my opinion [add $5 and buy a Starbuck's coffee] that the last sentence of Article VII is deliberately vague to encompass closed to the local church communion and allowing participation of baptized church members who are not necessarily members of the specific church observing the ordinance (but not open communion).

VII. Baptism and the Lord's Supper
Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.

The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.

 

[Yeshua1]

The BFM2000 says of baptism (Article VII), "Being a church ordinance, it [baptism] is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper." [underlined added]

For those in the SBC and others who use the BFM2000 (or something w/ a similar statement), do you have this practice and made explicit in your church? Do your pastors before administering the elements give a note of who is expected or allowed to partake as according to the faith and practice of the church?

I've not enforced this in my church, but I plan on starting this Sunday. What I mean by that is that although I have read through the BFM2000, I never recollected that last part (to which I agree). Now, when I administer the elements and after my communion meditation, I plan on advising only those who profess faith in Jesus and have obeyed him in baptism may partake. I do not plan on slapping the bread or juice (wish it were wine) out of anyone's hand, however.

Do you do this?

We should, in order to be consistent, but always interesting and ironic to me that we would stop someone already sdaved and in the Body of Christ from doing what Jesus commanded them to do!
What is most important, to be ammebr of the local church, by water baptism, or to be a member of His true Church by faith in Him?

 

[Reynolds]

The BF&M in Article VII states " whereby members of the church"...

So is the "church" that individual local church (closed) or the church as the Body of Christ (See Article VI) (open communion)?

But to the op - YES, I do mention the requirements for partaking the Lords Supper. But, on the other hand, I will not "make a scene".
Rather, that would be a private discussion for later at an appropriate time.

Will mention this - several years ago - I was serving communion - mom took it (no problem) but then her three year old wanted the elements as well.
I put the plate up so he could not obtain them. After I went back to the front - mom comes up and gets the elements for her son.
I was dumbfounded - I was not the pastor -so I took no action - ----What would you have done in this situation?

Tell her to go sit down.

 

[rlvaughn]

We should, in order to be consistent, but always interesting and ironic to me that we would stop someone already sdaved and in the Body of Christ from doing what Jesus commanded them to do!

To prove your point, it is first requisite that you show that Jesus has commanded the unbaptized to partake the Lord's supper.

 

[The Biblicist]

Were any of those in the Upper Room for the initial celebration of Communion (Lord's Supper) baptized in the name and authority of Jesus? I suggest to you that they were not. I am confident that they probably received baptism at the hand of John the Baptizer, although no one was baptized by Jesus since He did not baptize (John 4:2).

I am loath to prescribe any restrictions to the Lord's table that are not made plain in scripture.

The table is intended for those who are active disciples of Christ, and those who are active disciples will certainly seek to be baptized, but there may be a short delay before it happens, or there may be a very special case where baptism is not feasible, but sharing in the Lord's table is.

Yes, they were all baptized in Jesus name, including Christ himself was baptized in Jesus name. Do you know the meaning of "jesus name"? In the book of Acts "in the name of Jesus" simply means as authorized by Christ or in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost - the Triune God (Mt. 28:19). John baptized in the name of the truine God or "as authorized" by God who is triune in nature. John recognized Jesus as Jehovah (Jn. 3:31) and recognized all three persons of the Godhood and claimed to have been "sent" (apostello - sent under authority) by God to baptize or to baptize "in the name" of the triune God. Paul acknowledged to those who were not baptized by John that John baptized with reference to faith in Christ (Acts 19:5). Jesus acknowledge that the baptism of John had only one of two possible origins "of heaven " or "of men." Jesus submitted to his authority to baptize, thus submitting to be baptized "in the name" or as authorized by the Triune God.

Moreover, all Old Testament saints were Christians as they all by faith embraced the Messiah (annointed/Christ) - Acts 10:43/Heb. 4:2 - although they were not baptized at all as baptism was the new ordinance under the EARTHLY new covenant ADMINISTRATION which began with John the Baptist (Mk. 1:1).

 

[Yeshua1]

To prove your point, it is first requisite that you show that Jesus has commanded the unbaptized to partake the Lord's supper.

Are we not saved and able to partake apart from being water baptized, as that ordinance does not save us, and those who have received Jesus are the only one qualified to partake!
Its mot membership of a local church qualifying us, but being a member of his body/true church that does!

 

[Greektim]

Are we not saved and able to partake apart from being water baptized, as that ordinance does not save us, and those who have received Jesus are the only one qualified to partake!
Its mot membership of a local church qualifying us, but being a member of his body/true church that does!

Are you truly saved if you refuse to be obedient and thus unrepentant of sin? That is the logic in these confessions. One who is saved is one who is repentant. One who is repentant is one who is obedient. One who is obedient is one who obeys the command to be baptized. In this case, baptism is a necessary evidence of one's faith and repentance.

 

[Yeshua1]

Are you truly saved if you refuse to be obedient and thus unrepentant of sin? That is the logic in these confessions. One who is saved is one who is repentant. One who is repentant is one who is obedient. One who is obedient is one who obeys the command to be baptized. In this case, baptism is a necessary evidence of one's faith and repentance.

Necessary as required for salvation?

 

[Greektim]

Necessary as required for salvation?

No, "necessary evidence of one's faith and repentance" as I said.