Do you have to be baptized to take the Lord's Supper?

I think I'm correct that the majority of us see water baptism as a pre-requisite for membership in a local church. I don't know of any Baptist church of any stripe which allows unbaptized people to be members. If I'm right, then it doesn't make sense to invite an unbaptized person to the Lord's table.

Paul had this to say in I Cor 10:17:

Paul is clearly referring to the body as a local congregation. He reinforces this in 12:27 when he refers to the congregation at Corinth as "YE are the body of Christ."


So, to me, if we require one ordinance--baptism-- as the door to local church membership, but do not require it for access to the other ordinance--the Lord's table--this is a glaring inconsistency.

The arguments for each side hang on the question, Is the LS a Christian ordinance or a church ordinance? Your answer will determine how much access you will allow to the Lord's table.

(Psst. It's a church ordinance. Pass it on).

 

I have a problem with the thinking of close or closed communion folks.

First, the reference to "guarding" made is a bit out of play.

There were obvious excesses addressed by Paul concerning the communion, and Paul was not stating that communion was to be restricted in the sense of close or closed rather in exactly what communion consisted.

Rather than a whole meal with some members going to excess and then ending with the communion, Paul was telling the folks to eat at home, but when you come to the LS here is what you are to do.

That is the guarding. It was NOT given to any person or group such as - we are so puffed up with self righteousness that we can to tell someone else they are not eligible.

ALL are to examine their own life to find for THEMSELVES their worthiness or not. It is not up to the group or the neighbor to make that decision. It is not up to the local reputation and gossip chain, either.

To tell a visitor they cannot partake because "we don't share the ball" is not only selfish but denies what communion is all about.

It is the highest point of worship in which total introspection takes place. It is between that believer and God - no one else is invited into that space!

To read that some would deny such joy and closeness of the Savior to a fellow believer who just doesn't happen to belong to your holy huddle is ...

is ...

is ...

Absurd!

 

I have always been an open communionist, but how a church and/or association does theirs is their own business.

 

I agree. The local church can resolve to support anything their holy huddle decides.

What bothered me was the vain attempts at justifying close and closed communion. Especially, using the "guarded" line. As if they are doing someone a favor!

Rather, take a brief time and explain to the gathering what is about to take place. That this is the most important and worshipful time a believer in this life can have before the Lord. That there is warnings given to all who partake and are unworthy - be they believer or unbeliever.

Then give time for earnest reflection and quiet mediation (with out the noise of music or disturbance). How many times have I seen and been in a service where the music continues throughout the LS. As if the silence would be unbearable.

If the people cannot be still, somber, and reflectively worshipful before the Lord at this point, perhaps the whole fellowship is unworthy.

Allow all who will to partake.

Even the children. For our Lord said to forbid them not, and what makes us the arbitrator of whether that child is less tuned to Christ than we more schooled and historically more sinful.

When we sit down with the Christ at the heavenly feast, the only folks excluded will be the ones not present. How dare we in our puffed up attitudes consider others unwelcome at the table of the LS just because they don't meet some man made up standard.

If some hold that only the eleven were partakers and exclusions were enacted, then the rule would also exclude women. For only the male gender took of the first cup and bread.

This is all soooooooooooooo Ridiculous!

 

agedman,

We've been having a pretty civil debate on this matter.

Then you made it uncivil, with pejoratives such as "holy huddle," "puffed up attitudes," "puffed up with self-righteousness, "doing someone a favor," "selfish, absurd" and "ridiculous."

And to tell the truth, you were doing a pretty good job of defending your position until you went into the attack mode, impugning motives and going ad hominem.

We who share my view hold it because we believe it is a scriptural view. That's it. You are welcome to disagree with it, and, of course, you do.

But please don't poison the conversation with vitriol and sarcasm.

 

I'm going to answer a Christian ordinance.

When Christ instituted the Lord's Supper He gave the disciples the wine and the bread and said, "Do this in remembrance of Me." Where was the local church? There was no local church, it had yet to be founded. Yet here is the command by the Lord himself to take the Lord's Supper.

 

Exactly!


















The Lord's Supper is only for the 12

 

My sincere apologies if the vitriol and sarcasm were over the top of what is considerate and appropriate.


I used sarcasm because the arguments that I read in support of the view were coming from people whom I regard as far more capable than the support they were offering.

You and Old Regular are consistently very insightful and wise in your posts, but the balance you both regularly express seems to be missing from the approach and defense of what you supported in this thread.

Did you miss the game motif of the response I made? I figured since you both were using "guarded" that I would use holy huddle. Isn't that what is actually being done? Kind of like a gang protecting their basketball turf? The visitors and children become mere spectators, excluded from the real and intimate fellowship that the Lord commanded and instructed.

Have you considered that fellowships that practice close and closed communion establish the fellowship as the judge of what God considers His territory - that is, who is or is not worthy?

As such, are they not "puffed up" in attitude and self righteousness? Is not the attitude of exclusivity "selfish?"

Is not that sort of thinking dwelling in the range of "absurd" and "ridiculous?"

Is it not Christ alone that knows the heart(s) and is the final judge of all?

Perhaps, those who are from inside the exclusionary fellowship don't view the practice as problematic, but, from those of us who would have been grateful to join in the worship and were summarily banned, the words I chose – though admittedly strong - were pretty accurate to the view from the excluded who were just too kind to ever object.

Perhaps I am wrong in my assessment of the closed and close communion thinking and folks.

 

I don't want to derail this thread by getting into a discussion of the date of the beginning of the church, but it's already derailed. Here's what I posted in a thread back in September.

Regarding the OP:
Every one of those who participated in the first Lord's Supper was a baptized believer. Okay, we're back on track.

 

Willis.....

....you da man! Merry Christmas brother!

 

But baptism is an order, so, isn't it disobedience not to be baptized?

Cheers,

Jim

 

I am not opposed to establishing various times when the church was started.

That the church was started; that is really all that matters.

The issue isn't if the Apostles were organized as a local church body or not.

The ordinances, enjoyed by the total body of Christ from the beginning, were set forth (as if by command of law) by Christ. That is not in dispute.

That the local church has authority to administer the ordinances and establish frequency and time of the observance is also not in dispute.

The question is whether each body stands alone to make laws concerning who can partake of the ordinance, or did Christ as the head establish the ordinance and to whom it applies.

There are those of the opinion that the authority to administer also translates to establishing the law in who can partake. But the Scriptures both in example and in word gives no such authority to any local body of believers. Neither did Christ establish such restriction. The apostles knew they had no authority in that matter and did not apply restriction or exclusion.

If one were to contend that the example given by Christ at the last supper sets exclusion standards, then women and children would be excluded as well as anyone not having visual physical and social contact with Christ before the cross. No exclusions were established, and the Apostles did not mark out any lines of who could or could not participate.

Paul did not establish any exclusionary standard, but he certainly warned of participation by those unworthy. He did not say they should not participate, but that, if those who were unworthy did participate, they brought condemnation to their own bodies.

Each person must make the determination to engage in the ordinance or not based upon the personal decision of worthiness. The exclusion is to be personal and not made by some political body.

This applies to BOTH baptism and the Lord's Supper.

 

I appreciate that. I'm a big boy, and I can take it. I just want us to defend our views in a civil manner, and it seemed that we were getting away from that.

Actually, I thought OldRegular and I were making some pretty good points. Eye of the beholder, I guess.

Here is the reason I used the word "guarded."

I Cor 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and guard the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

You are mis-defining "unworthily." It has nothing to do with our being worthy to take the LS. It has everything to do with observing it in an unworthy manner, as the Corinthians were doing. It was so serious that God killed some of them.

Paul gave stern instructions to refuse the Lord's Supper to the man (Chapter 5) who was having an affair. In fact, to refuse to fellowship with him. Paul demanded that the Corinthian church do exactly the opposite of what you advocate. He demanded that it pass judgment on whom it would allow to fellowship with them and allow to take communion.

5:12b-13 Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked man from among you!

True. But Paul was not demanding that the church judge hearts. It was to judge behavior which it had allowed to go on.

Yes, you have assessed us wrongly.

Brother, you are always welcome to disagree with my view and the scriptural rationale that I give for it. But you presumed to know my heart, and labeled it as puffed up, self-righteous and selfish.

Were it not for my being convinced that Scripture supports my view, I would gladly join you in yours. But I can't.

 

So, bottom line here.
Should a church require its members to be baptized?
Should a church require participants in the Lord's Supper to be baptized?
Should a church have the right to determine whom it will baptize? Or can a candidate simply ask for it and he church has no choice but to grant his request?
Should a church have the right to determine whom it will allow to take the Lord's Supper? Or may a total stranger express his desire to participate, with the church having no say in the matter?

 

I am a member of a Southern Baptist Church. If I were to visit an Old Regular Baptist Church would I be allowed to participate in the communion service?

 

MYy belief!

Should a church require its members to be baptized? YES!
Should a church require participants in the Lord's Supper to be baptized? YES!
Should a church have the right to determine whom it will baptize? YES!
Or can a candidate simply ask for it and the church has no choice but to grant his request? NO!
Should a church have the right to determine whom it will allow to take the Lord's Supper? YES!
Or may a total stranger express his desire to participate, with the church having no say in the matter? NO!

 

I find no place in 1 Corinthians 5 that Paul is talking of the Lord's Supper.

Paul is talking about the most obvious and public sin (leaven) of a person that needed to be put out of the assembly and association between the person and the assembly irrevocably broken. This was to be done immediately and not conditioned upon the communion. Being put out and shunned by the assembly means that the person was allowed no fellowship at all.

Liars, fornicators, idolitors ... were and are all publicly known affronts to the testimony of the church. Of course, the local body should address the person who flaunts sinful behavior and brings shame to the testimony of Christ.

Again, that is irregardless of the Lord's Supper, but is guarding the testimony of the church as displayed before the world and as it impacts the body.

A person so shunned by the body of believers has no fellowship with any believer be it local or international. The Lord's Supper is mute to the discussion of a person in such a condition.

 

These are all good and practicle questions.

Baptism is an ordinance given by Christ to believer not the church. If the church wants to extend membership to all who are baptized, they are certainly free to do so. If the person determines to be baptized but refuses church membership that is that person's right. Again, the ordinance is given by Christ. Baptism and membership do not always need to go hand in glove.

Why? These are separate ordinances. Who am I that I would categorically state that one must predate the other. For instance, Baptist believe that a child is in a state of grace before the age of accountability. The church would teach that if the child were to die they would go to heaven, yet that same church would deny allowing that innocent child the Lord's supper. Did Christ not tell the disciples to NOT forbid the children...?

What does baptism signify? If that person does not confess Jesus Christ as Savior then they are not believers and have no right to ask to be baptized. If that person does express and confess Jesus Christ as Savior, what right has the church to not baptize? Again the emphasis is placed upon the person not the institution.

Let me further ask, what would it gain a person who is not a believer to be baptized? Selfish motives of greed, political gain, ... Would not the fruits of such a person reveal the truth? Would not the assembly then be obliged to remove the person and shun them (1 cor. 5)?

The correct answer is no the church is not the determiner of who will or won't be allowed. If a person has been irrevocably shunned (1 Cor. 5) there is no contact with that person and the question is mute. If the person is a stranger, then the church falls to no condemnation if that person takes of the elements unworthily. Why should it matter to the church if a stranger partakes or not? Is the condemnation heaped upon the fellowship if the person is unworthy? Is there broken testimony to the community of unbelievers is the person takes or doesn't?

The church leadership should conduct the Lord's table in such a manner that it is a sober time of reflected introspection. Each person doing private business with the Lord. It is between the believer and Christ. There is no more Holy and close worship communion with Christ than at the time of this supper. If the stranger isn't wise enough to understand or chooses to ignore the warnings, the fault is NOT with the church.

The church should not take upon itself that responsibility.

 

yes, a believer is disobedient if they are not baptized.

 

I based my comment on I Cor 5:11

My understanding is that the Lord's Supper was often observed at the same time of the fellowship meal. Paul speaks of it in chapter 11.

I think you're right that excluding members for flagrant sin has the same effect as denying them communion, and denying them access to the fellowship meal.

And I certainly don't think you're advocating that the church adopt a hands-off attitude toward those offending members regarding the Lord's Supper.

I also want to comment on your comment:

It seems to me that your position allows an individual to substitute his judgment for that of the church. Are you sure you want to carry that argument to its logical extreme.