The Baptist requirements for communion?

[Chemnitz]

Why should whether or not a person has been baptized matter? Baptism doesn't save. I've always seen it as a choice since its not like you won't go to Heaven if you're not baptized. I think as long as a person is saved and feels that they want to partake in communion they shouldn't be stopped from doing so. Any church with any requirements or who will deny any of God's children to have communion probably isn't a church thats growing or doing much for its members. I certainly wouldn't waste my time going to a church with rules against people taking communion(besides them having to be saved), thats just disgusting. It sickens me that any church would have such rules to make visitors feel unwelcome like that, definitely not Christian-like attitude at all.

May I kindly say that you should stop being offended and actually spend sometime studying God's Word. There are reasons why churches are hesitant to dish out communion so freely. Namely because they can not offer it in good conscience to those who are taking it to their judgement. BTW I'd love to burst your bubble, but I know of several churches that practice close(d) communion and are growing, one of which has over 4500 members.

 

[ascund]

Greetings

God's promise is not through the law, but through the righteousness of faith (Rom 4:13). Abraham is the example of how the promise is given by faith apart from works, sacraments, rites, or good deeds.

The promise comes on us all through Jesus Christ by faith (Gal 3:14) to all who believe (Gal 3:33).

There is not one reference to God's promise that is associated with water baptism. However, God links the promise of eternal life (Heb 9:15; I John 2:25) to the Spirit's baptism (Gal 3:14; Eph 1:13-14, 4:30).

Since there is but one baptism - it is the unseen Spirit baptism - not the seen water ritual (@ Cor 4:18).

The Spirit's baptism leads to harmony and Jesus' glorification. Water baptism leads to dis-harmony and glorification of self-righteousness.

The contrast is quite stark!
Lloyd

 

[Chemnitz]

Rather than completely highjacking this thread may be we should move the discussion concerning baptism and baptismal methods to another thread.

 

[jaded_chaos]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Why should whether or not a person has been baptized matter? Baptism doesn't save. I've always seen it as a choice since its not like you won't go to Heaven if you're not baptized. I think as long as a person is saved and feels that they want to partake in communion they shouldn't be stopped from doing so. Any church with any requirements or who will deny any of God's children to have communion probably isn't a church thats growing or doing much for its members. I certainly wouldn't waste my time going to a church with rules against people taking communion(besides them having to be saved), thats just disgusting. It sickens me that any church would have such rules to make visitors feel unwelcome like that, definitely not Christian-like attitude at all.

May I kindly say that you should stop being offended and actually spend sometime studying God's Word. There are reasons why churches are hesitant to dish out communion so freely. Namely because they can not offer it in good conscience to those who are taking it to their judgement. BTW I'd love to burst your bubble, but I know of several churches that practice close(d) communion and are growing, one of which has over 4500 members. </font>[/QUOTE]I think its up to the individual of whether or not they should take communion, there's no way the church can know a person's heart. And what does baptism have to do with anything? I'm sure there are plenty of people who have been baptized who didn't truly mean anything they did in their heart. Being baptized doesn't mean the person even cares about communion. I just don't understand the point of it, besides making the church look more like a social club then a welcoming place of worship like its supposed to be. If a Christian feels led to have communion, and then is kept from doing so just because they're visiting a church, well that just doesn't say much about the people of that church.

God welcomes everyone into his presence as believers to worship him. Baptist or not. Its time his followers learn that too. And I can take offense to it, because its a very sad thing for anyone to agree with turning people away.

 

[Chemnitz]

I think its up to the individual of whether or not they should take communion, there's no way the church can know a person's heart. And what does baptism have to do with anything?

It isn't about what you think it is about what God thinks.
1. God has warned us against profaning the Body and Blood of Christ. (1 Cor 11)
2. Blatant unrepentance can be judged because it is outwardly expresses what is in the heart.
3. If you commune at a church you are giving a public statement that you agree with the teachings of that church and if you don't actually agree then you are a hypocrit.
4. The Lord's Supper was given to his church not to random people. Regardless of the absolute necessity of Baptism there are no unbaptized Christians.
5. The Lord's Supper is not merely an individual thing it is a corporate participation of the Body and Blood.

I have found that people who did not grow up in the church are not offended by the limiting the distribution. Only people who have grown up in other denominations are offended by the limitation.

 

[ascund]

Hey Chemnitz

You certainly have a valid view for allowing participation dependent upon one's personal decision.

Scenario 1: A CoC participates at a Baptist communion.

Your view has troubles here. While CoCers can actually be genuine Christians, they are so while embracing heretical doctrines. Think of the public implications of this for the Baptists. Can they publically endorse these Christ-denying heresies? The purity of the gospel is easily diluted.


Scenario 2: A Baptist participates at a CoC communion.

Here, the baptist doctrine is actually an upgrade. However, the CoCers would see the faith-only baptism as a perversion of their human-centered self-righteous system of death and despair.

Both groups are actually offended by the perceived error in the other group. Both groups want to present their singular view of doctrine to the public.

When the gospel of Jesus Christ has been splintered into so many factions, then your great suggestion as to personal decision is very hard to implement.

Lloyd

 

[riverm]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I think its up to the individual of whether or not they should take communion, there's no way the church can know a person's heart. And what does baptism have to do with anything?

It isn't about what you think it is about what God thinks.
1. God has warned us against profaning the Body and Blood of Christ. (1 Cor 11)
2. Blatant unrepentance can be judged because it is outwardly expresses what is in the heart.
3. If you commune at a church you are giving a public statement that you agree with the teachings of that church and if you don't actually agree then you are a hypocrit.
4. The Lord's Supper was given to his church not to random people. Regardless of the absolute necessity of Baptism there are no unbaptized Christians.
5. The Lord's Supper is not merely an individual thing it is a corporate participation of the Body and Blood.

I have found that people who did not grow up in the church are not offended by the limiting the distribution. Only people who have grown up in other denominations are offended by the limitation. </font>[/QUOTE]Hi Chenitz: From reading yours and jaded_chaos, you guys aren’t much different. The only thing I would add to jaded_chaos is that communion is between the believer and God and your list is perfectly true only a church can not protect the Lords Table as Pastor Larry has stated in the past. Any ‘ol Joe can walk into any Protestant church (excluding cults) on any given Sunday and partake in their communion whether it be open or closed. They may state that it’s closed, but won’t stop anybody. It may offend visitors and I being a Baptist would be embarrassed if a friend of mine that was baptized by another mode other than immersion was with me on communion Sunday and heard the preacher pompously state his baptism isn’t scriptural and therefore not allowed to partake in communion.

edited to say: "Protestant church (excluding cults"

 

[ascund]

Greetings

"Pompously?" In this pluralistic age, we have cut ourselves from the critical standard of truth. Now days, "I'm ok - you're ok" is the rule. If/when one stands up and says, Jesus is the WAY, then everybody calls that person names. How dare that person claim to have a corner on knowledge?

We must boldly expose heresy and seek to purify Christ's Church. We must do this even if ridiculed by taunts of being "pompous."

Those who hold to the reformed tri-part truth: God's grace, Jesus' righteousness, and instrumental faith need not feer embarassment for the name of Jesus.

The denial of open communion is meant to make face the realities of sin and heresy and come to Christ as He commanded - by faith in Him (John 6:29).

Lloyd

 

[Chemnitz]

Any ‘ol Joe can walk into any Protestant church (excluding cults) on any given Sunday and partake in their communion whether it be open or closed. They may state that it’s closed, but won’t stop anybody.

That is true only to an extent. We do announce our position and have time for reflection in our service, because our size we have to depend more on the honesty of the people attending, but if I as the Pastor know for certain a person does not confess the presence of Christ's Body and Blood or is engaged in unrepentant sin, I will pass them over if they come up to receive communion.

 

[riverm]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
if I as the Pastor know for certain a person does not confess the presence of Christ's Body and Blood or is engaged in unrepentant sin, I will pass them over if they come up to receive communion.

Not to go off on a tangent, but…

I didn’t think the Lutherans believed in the real presence in the elements as the Catholics do. How is the Lutheran communion different from that of the Catholic communion other than a means of grace for the Catholics?

 

[Chemnitz]

I didn’t think the Lutherans believed in the real presence in the elements as the Catholics do. How is the Lutheran communion different from that of the Catholic communion other than a means of grace for the Catholics?

The RCC, namely Aquinas, went to far in their explanation of the real presence by saying that while the outer forms of bread and wine are present their substance is changed to that of the Body and Blood. Thomas Aquinas based this reasoning heavily on Aristotilian physics. His teachings are what led to many of the abuses of the sacrament that the RCC is guilty of i.e. adoration of the Host and Corpus Christi processions.

Lutherans teach that the Body and Blood are physically present but we refrain from explaining how. At the same time because Paul talks of bread and wine at the same time we teach that the bread and wine are still present. Generally we short hand this by saying "in,with, and under." Based upon His promise, we do teach that Christ offers His Body and Blood in Holy Communion for the forgiveness of sins.

I know that my language tends to sound RCC but it is because it is a little time consuming to type out "in,with, and under" all the time and because Body and Blood is better than refering to Holy Communion as bread and wine as it is more than simple bread and wine.

 

[riverm]

Chemnitz:

Thanks for the condensed explanation. I’d come closer to believing the Lutheran’s view of communion, because scripture seems to be pretty clear on that issue, than that immersion as the only mode of baptism, which isn’t clear in scripture.

 

[Claudia_T]

All throughout the Bible it is shown we have a part to do in all of this, including being baptised by water...


Willing obedience made Naaman whole:

Naaman the Syrian consulted the prophet of God as to how he could be cured of a loathsome disease, the leprosy. He was bidden to go and bathe in Jordan seven times. Why did he not immediately follow the directions of Elisha, the prophet of God? . . . In his mortification and disappointment he became passionate, and in a rage refused to follow the humble course marked out by the prophet of God. "I thought," said he, "he will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the Lord his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper. Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? may I not wash in them, and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage." His servant said: "My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash [merely], and be clean?" Yes, this great man considered it beneath his dignity to go to the humble river Jordan, and wash. The rivers he mentioned and desired were beautified by surrounding trees and groves, and idols were placed in these groves. Many flocked to these rivers to worship their idol gods; therefore it would have cost him no humility. But it was following the specified directions of the prophet which would humble his proud and lofty spirit. Willing obedience would bring the desired result. He washed, and was made whole.


March around Jericho:

For six days the host of Israel made the circuit of the city. The seventh day came, and with the first dawn of light, Joshua marshaled the armies of the Lord. Now they were directed to march seven times around Jericho, and at a mighty peal from the trumpets to shout with a loud voice, for God had given them the city.


It was God that commanded them to march around that city but had they not done that and obeyed God's command, would God have given them the city?


The woman touched the garment of Christ and also had faith:


Matthew 9:
19: And Jesus arose, and followed him, and so did his disciples.
20: And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment:
21: For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole.
22: But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.


Jesus said we needed to be washed or else we have no part with Him:

Jn:13:8: Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.


Jesus ordered the man to do something, namely, to go WASH in the pool.. he obeyed:

Jn:9:
7: And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.
11: He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight.
15: Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see.

 

[Claudia_T]

And when you think of Baptism the theif on the cross is always brought up as an excuse not to get baptised. But the thief on the cross couldnt get baptised, he could hardly jump down off the cross and do that. Thats why the Bible says this:

2Cor:8:12: For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.

It is the willing mind, that willingness to obey what God says, that humility to submit to God and just do what He says and your faith that He will do just exactly what He promises to do... it is those things you need.

Its the same way with baptism. Of course it is God's power alone that can regenerate you, it is God alone who can save you. BUT He will not do it unless you have that humility, that willingness to obey, that faith in His love and power... And if it is impossible for you to be baptised then God isnt going to expect impossibilities out of you. So it isnt as if there are some sort of "magical powers" in the water that do something to you.

Heb:5:9: And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him

claudia

 

[MrJMc]

The first question would be, which were they? Were they sprinkled or were they baptized? They are not the same. Baptism is immersion. Sprinkling is ... well ... sprinkling. The NT has a word for sprinkling and it is never used for baptism.

With respect to communion, the Bible gives the table to the church to practice and guard, and the church is responsible to make sure that those who partake of it are walking in obedience in accordance with the scriptural teaching on communion. Someone who has not been baptized is not obedient. Additionally, the church cannot testify to the obedience of someone who is not a member of their church.

There is nothing here to be ashamed about or embarrassed about. When we observe communion, I explain it and ask people who don't meet those qualifications to respectfully abstain. Since 1) baptism doesn't save and 2) communion is a remembrance, it really doesn't matter.

Respectfully could not disagree more. It is not up to the church to decide who is worthy of participating in communion based on their literal and possibly overly restrictive interpretation of who is in disobedience. The practice of disinviting saved, born again Christians from communion participation is arbitrary and is insultingly exclusionary to those who actually believe as you do with respect to what counts. It is an imposed restriction by one imperfect individual or group of individuals on other imperfect individuals. Using the disobedience card is regrettably hypocritical, because the pastor knows he has invited numerous other disobedient people to partake of communion while excluding others. I do not believe for one minute that the loving, merciful Christ that I worship and believe in as my saviour would exclude anyone who wanted to honor Him by taking communion whether they had been immersed or not. That is man made interpretation. I am not denying the right of the church to make the decision, but I am taking issue with a practice that is theologically discriminatory and exclusionary with regard to other Christians. That is no way to unite Christians. Respectfully submitted.

 

[MrJMc]

Respectfully could not disagree more regarding an immersion requirement for communion. It is not up to the church to decide who is worthy of participating in communion based on their literal and possibly overly restrictive interpretation of who is in disobedience. The practice of disinviting saved, born again Christians from communion participation is arbitrary and is insultingly exclusionary to those who actually believe as you do with respect to what counts. It is an imposed restriction by one imperfect individual or group of individuals on other imperfect individuals. Using the disobedience card is regrettably hypocritical, because the pastor knows he has invited numerous other disobedient people to partake of communion while excluding others. I do not believe for one minute that the loving, merciful Christ that I worship and believe in as my saviour would exclude anyone who wanted to honor Him by taking communion whether they had been immersed or not. That is man made interpretation. I am not denying the right of the church to make the decision, but I am taking issue with a practice that is theologically discriminatory and exclusionary with regard to other Christians. That is no way to unite Christians. Respectfully submitted.