MUST A Christian Be Baptised Before Can Observe Communion?

Each epistle written to a local church was different. Each had different problems. Each church was different.
Likewise each church that Christ addressed in Revelation 2 and 3 was different one from another. He praised them for their good and condemned them for their error. They were different one from the other. They were not clones of each other. (contradicting RCC teaching). They had their own autonomy and independence, and thus their own soul liberty.

Just as every local church must decide on what standard of music they are going to adhere to, what standard of dress they will impose on members or leadership, if grape juice or actual wine will be used, or even if drinking of alcoholic beverages is right or wrong.
Each church must also decide if their communion is closed, close, or open.
Closed: Only the baptized members of the church may partake.
close: Only members of churches of like faith and order may partake (almost always must be baptized).
Open: Open to any believer

Most of the churches I have been in practice "close" communion: where churches of like faith and order may partake. They must be baptized. Why? Because a person who refuses to be baptized is living in a state of continual rebellion against God. Baptism is the first step of obedience in the Christian life. As long as you will not be baptized you are disobeying God.

What happens when we partake of the Lord's Supper?

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.

28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. (1 Corinthians 11:27-30)

The warning is there in verse 28. Examine yourself. If you are guilty of any sin do not partake, and that includes not being baptized. The church at Corinth were abusing the Lord's Supper. The Lord judged them. The judgment, according to verse 30, resulted in some being weak, some being sick, and some being dead!

This is one of the most important services of the church. It is not to be treated lightly.

 

That sounds like The RCC or our federal government(no offense intended); the assumption of all authority by a governmental or church entity by default. All authorities not given to the church are the individual's by default. As a priest in the royal priesthood, my accountability is directly to God. The regenerate soul has the liberty given by the regeneration & indwelling of the Holy Spirit. By the "new and living way" the need for human priests & priestly churches has been eliminated. The purpose of the church is not as a conduit to God through the rules & means of a religious organization. The church that usurps the individual priesthood of the believer has stepped outside its Biblical bounds & placed itself in a dangerous position; between God & His own.

Scripture says, "let a man examine himself" not let THE man examine the congregation.

Heb 10:19-21 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having an high priest over the house of God"

2 Corinthians 5:10, 1 Peter 2:9,

 

Your home church restricts communion to baptized believers.

Jaigner mentioned restricting communion to unbaptized believers.

 

Ann as usual you seem to have an excuse for falling short. Baptism in the scripture was never postponed. Goodness buy a horse watering trough or find an old bath tub. I know of one man baptized in a 55 gal barrel. If you held baptism up where it belongs and really wanted to baptize someone you would find a way. Also i can't tell you anything about the past of what percent of those making claims are real or false. I would point out that Paul felt that many in the Corinthian church was very possibly lost after writing to them. You can find that in 2Cor.

 

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. (Acts 2:41-42)

1. They received the word (and were saved).
2. They were baptized.
3. They were added to the First Baptist Church at Jerusalem.
4. They partook in the Lord's Supper, after having been taught doctrine.

Notice the first three steps were all in one day.

 

Ann that is your choice, please feel free to follow it. You are simply way to liberal to carry on a constructive conversation. Acts 2:41-42 Example same day baptism.

 

Two different subjects but ok:

Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, 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.
1Co 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
1Co 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Not that this has anything to do with my question.

Well at least you finally made an attempt to secure your position with scripture, a weak one but none the less. Of course this is out of context.

Not sure why you keep bringing up unrelated passages but you have more of them then you do of the actual topic of the op. Why is that?

So where does it say directly that the church cannot set boundaries for who it ministers the Lord's Supper to? You are holding the other poster to a standard you are not willing to hold yourself to.

 

Okay, just to make sure my statements are not construed to be heretical, I believe unbaptized believers should be allowed to partake, as do I believe that believing non-members should be able to partake, as well.

It is an issue of conscience.

 

I disagree with the presupposition that the Church may set unScriptural boundaries. Read ALL the Scriptural references. Those who "have the rule" are under the rule of Scripture; much like our Constitutional Republic. When those who are "power" stray from the law, their rules are unlawful. Are you a liberal democrat? They like to take authorities not granted to them too based on the same line of reasoning.

Reread 1 Corinthians 5, communion is not listed there. This passage is referencing sinful behavior that is clearly condemned in Scripture. Perhaps you should take your own advice and not take Scripture out of context. Better yet, don't add to it.

 

6 to 13 weeks of classes before you can be baptized? Are you serious? All they need to know is that they are being baptized to show obedience to Jesus. It's that simple.

 

That's not a bad idea.

Let's not forget that just because someone is justified doesn't mean they immediately become mature enough to fully understand and process the need to be baptized. I believe I was regenerated at 7 years old. Even being so young, it was a dramatic shift in perspective for me. But I wasn't baptized for a number of years after, mostly due to my own immaturity. Basically, I was scared to get up in front of everyone (2000+ at the church I grew up in.)

It is no reason to deny communion to anyone.

 

I think it's useful at this point in the discussion to point out that our views over access to the Lord's Table are not arrived at in isolation, regardless of which side you're on.

For me, my view has its origins in the definition of what a church is. I believe that the New Testament knows only of the local congregation. (I'll save the arguments supporting that view for another time).

I hold that Jesus established the local congregation during his ministry.

I hold that the Twelve were the material of the first church.

I hold that the ordinances were given to the local church, since they had them during Jesus earthly ministry, and there was only one congregation at the time.

I hold that the Great Commission was given to the first congregation, and then to its successors. Today, 2000 years later, the local church's marching orders are embodied in that Commission.

I hold that new believers are baptized into a specific congregation. The 3000 baptized on the day of Pentecost were added to the Jerusalem church.

Paul's first Corinthian letter was written to a local congregation, and he spend part of Chapter 11 castigating them for abusing the Lord's Supper, and instructing them on how to do it correctly----as a congregation.

Paul also said Jesus died for at least one local church--the one at Ephesus. For that reason, I hold that he died for East Baptist Church, Paducah, Kentucky, and for each my brothers and sisters who are members.

Finally, there is the matter of church discipline. Salty, in post #12, toward the bottom, raised the right question, so I won't repeat it here.

For these and other reasons, I hold that the Lord's Supper is for the members of the church observing it--closed communion.

Now, if you believe in the universal church, you'll likely be an open communion advocate. I'll let those of you who are U-churchers make your own arguments.

But now you know I didn't just grab closed communion out of the air.

 

Jerome wrote:

Ann's reply included this:

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

I agree with Jerome on this one. I cannot imagine why any baptist church would restrict communion to unbaptised people. (I'm taking it that "restricts communion to" means the same thing on both sides of the Atlantic, that is, "says communion is only for.")