Communion. Is baptism required?

Absolutely. A believer who refuses to be baptized is living disobediently and is therefore "unworthy" (I Cor. 11) of partaking in the ordinance.

 

Nope. Baptism isn't required partake of communion. The symbolic purpose of baptism is different than that of communion. There's no biblical support to suggest that, for example, the twelve followers of Jesus were baptized before the Lord's Supper.

If, however, the pastor wants to administer communion only to sved and baptized believers, that's his right to do so.

 

There is Biblical evidence that the disciples were baptized. Jesus said about baptism, "Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness." His disciples would have followed the same exercise of godliness. Acts 2:41,42 gives the order - saved, baptized, added to the church (which already existed), then breaking of bread.

 

Practice in the Book of Acts - Salvation - them baptism (immediately).

I always state the to partake of the Lord's Supper - one must be saved and baptised (dunked)!

However - I'm not going to get in a big fight over this issue.

 

I don't know where baptism is linked to communion. However, as Dan pointed out, the NT model was that everyone who was a believer was baptized right away. The NT never perceives of an unbaptized Christian.

I wouldn't push the disobedience to God thing too far, as all of us our living in sin of one sort or another when we come to the table. Indeed, that is why we come to the table, not because we have "made it" and don't sin anymore, but because we come because we are sinners and in need of the mercy the table represents. The Bible speaks of examining yourself, so once again, if someone were to examine themselves and be under conviction about not being baptized, he should be right away!

My church also has this requriement, though they allow the baptism to be up to your own conscious (other church? as a child?). my church is vehement about following only the Bible so they must have their reasons, though I have never asked.

I think the problem comes by linking these two closely when you run into the primitive baptists or others who believe only their baptism is a true baptism, and therefor you must be baptized in their church to take communion (not picking on the primitives here, lots of groups believe this; but there was a thread recently on this very issue). That would be a problem for me because per my own conscious my baptism was valid in a non- primitive church, and I would not do it again if it meant endorsing that I have never been baptized all these years (and therefor in sin, espeically at the table!).

 

Re: "Were the apostles baptized before Christ gave them the ordinance of communion?"

Yes: all 12 (including Judas) were immersed by John, and so were the two men considered as the successor to Judas. Acts 1:21-22 gives these qualifications for the 12th apostle:

1) "of these males" (not general word for people, but specific word for adult men);

2) "who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us"

3) "beginning from the baptism of John" (and that would evidently include the 70, from which number Barsabas and Matthias were selected);

4) "unto the same day that He was taken up
from us" (witness of the ascension);

5) "to be a witness with us of His resurrection."

These qualifications begin with John's baptism. Since it was the only baptism Christ ever had or endorsed, it was evidently neither non-Christian nor sub-Christian. Let me recommend S. E. Anderson's excellent book, "The First Baptist," on this subject.

 

Just out of curiosity...where in the gospels does it say that all 12 disciples were baptised by John? Because I'm not finding it.

 

The gospels mention some: Jn. 1:35-42, for example. A few others are implied in the gospels. The key is the business session of the church to select a successor to Judas, Acts 1. Qualifications are stated, and one is "beginning from the baptism of John." While it is not impossible that John's disciples also may have baptized some who became followers of Jesus, it would still be called "the baptism of John." As this was one qualification for the new twelfth apostle, it would seem that both men named went back to that beginning point, possibly members of the 70 who were sent out after the 12 (sort of "understudies," as someone has said). Nothing is said about any of these being "rebaptized," and the "dozen dead disciples" of Acts 19 were many years later and hundreds of miles away from any place John preached. Most likely Apollos had immersed them on an inadequate message, that "the Messiah is on the way" - perfectly valid when John preached it, evidently all Apollos had heard in his youth. Since he was from Egypt, he missed "the rest of the story" until he met the gospel coming up from Palestine into Asia Minor.
Note that he was not "rebaptized," only more fully taught (Acts 18:26). But those he had "won"
had never heard of the Holy Spirit, did not under-stand repentance and faith, had acted on a partial
truth and therefore were not saved. It really isn't "rebaptism," but it's difficult to find a better word; it is a second act, but really the first proper baptism that is presented.

That's probably more than you asked; my wife says if someone asks me what time it is, I tell them how to make a watch! Best - Charles - Ro. 8:28

 

The question would have never been asked if churches actually did baptize as soon as one was saved. Then, every Baptist in the church in question would not be bothered in conscience about taking communion.

However, since the baptism that saves us is Christ's baptism FOR us, then all believers have that necessary baptism at the momemt of conversion. Therefore, I would baptize anybody who professes saving faith and was not immediately symbolicly dunked afterwards.

 

Acts 2:21 "All that call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" shall be saved.

Baptism is a public confession of your descion. Yet it is not what you do in order to be saved.

So if you want to take communion and have not been baptised go right ahead, the person that attempts to refuse it to you is judging you and will be judged himself by the same measure.

 

The last time I heard a pastor say that, my mother in law who was not a Christian took communion along with many others. The pastor stated that communion was for those who are Christians and who are baptized. Well she was baptized as a baby and considered herself a Christian. So in her own mind she answered the questions. So a few days later I asked the pastor why he did not give an invitation and baptism first. He looked at me with sort of a shock. I explained to him what happened and how he led her further from the truth. After that I never heard him do that again.

If we are going to tell the people that communion is only open to those who are saved and are baptized, then we must allow for a response of salvation and baptism. Paul clearly states that he never came to baptize but to preach the gospel. Obviously Paul knew what was most important.

Sounds like the pastor doesn't practice what he preaches but simply preaches what he has always heard. Sometime ask him to give you some scripture to support his opinion.

 

We had a situation like this just this past Sunday! A young fella walks down the isle during Invitation time---says, "Preacher! I want to be saved!"

I took him through a few verses of scripture and he prayed to receive Jesus as personal savior and Lord---repenting of his sins---I believe the fella was genuinely saved---

Immediately after I presented him to the church as candidate for Believer's Baptism we then shared Lord's Supper

Now, the dude is saved---there's no water in the baptistry---the dude didn't bring any change of clothes with him----what do I do?

 

You let him partake. The issue is not the Baptism itself, but the worthiness of his heart.

If he is willing and obedient to Baptism, than he is prepared to fellowship with the body.

Many churches have baptismal services at some interval, not immediately following a decision for Christ, those who are obedient to baptism should be considered as worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ, even if the outward physical symbol of Baptism has yet to occur due to the scheduling of the particular local body.

 

Baptism is NEVER required ... It's a step of obedience. If you want concrete meaning on this, remember the thief that hung next to Jesus on the Cross. He said he believed in him and Jesus said, today you will walk with me in Heaven. Baptism is a step of obedience to show the death and new life of a sinner it is NEVER required to get to heaven.

 

Johv, you seem to have VERY liberal theology.

qwerty,

YES I am a firm believer in CLOSED COMMUION.

1 Corinthians 11:27
“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".

 

ACK! C.R. See this is where personally I think it's a personal Conviction thing. The only person who can say a person isn't worthy is them. the LORD'S Supper is very personal to a person. They are the one who is going to have to answer for it, no one else. The Pastor can adminster LORD'S Supper, But it's up to the individual to accept it or not. I have refused once (my own choice and conviction) and I have accepted as well.

God Bless

 

Lead the church in rejoicing.

 

Johv, you seem to have VERY liberal theology.

qwerty,

YES I am a firm believer in CLOSED COMMUION.

1 Corinthians 11:27
“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". </font>[/QUOTE]Give me 100 percent proof that every person in your church who participates is saved. I can easily show you plenty of times including deacons who came forward later. I remember one time when a deacon came forward at the invitation. He had been a deacon for several years in a large church. A neighbor told me she came forward when her husband was the pastor in a small church. Her dad was an SBC evangelist.

I cannot be the judge of their salvation. All I can do is to present what scripture teaches.

[ June 10, 2004, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: gb93433 ]

 

GB that is very true. And it is NOT up to the church to decide someone's salvation. It's up to the individual and GOD to know if they are saved. They are the only one who can say so. I am the only one that can tell you i'm saved and YES -stands up - I AM SAVED Sept 29, 2002! My second birthday!

umm is that a touch much ????????????????