Re-Baptism, communion, other ordianances

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by TexasSky, Aug 19, 2005.

  1. TexasSky

    TexasSky
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    If you joined another church, (not necessarily another denomination), and for whatever reasons they might have, they asked you to be re-Baptized. Would you?

    Also, how would you react to a church telling you that you could not partake of communion unless you joined their individual congregation?

    I've seen a few churches over the years that say all new members must be baptized there, and that only members may partake of communion.
     
  2. Petrel

    Petrel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    0
    I doubt I would join a church like that, because considering baptisms outside that church invalid is an extrabiblical stance. If a church takes an extrabibilical stance on one thing, they're likely taking them on others.

    If I were visiting a church and was asked not to take communion because I was not a member, I would sit out communion. Whether I visited that church again would be dependent on how I was treated by the people there and whether the pastor was a good preacher.

    I have never been to a church that does not allow nonmembers to have communion, but I've visited Catholic churches, which do not allow non-Catholics to have communion. I think that communion should be open to all believers, but I didn't take communion there because I was a guest.
     
  3. Debby in Philly

    Debby in Philly
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    2,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've been in my home church all my life, so I can't even imagine looking to join another church.

    As a visitor in other churches from time to time, I respect their practice if it is known to me. I find it sad if they say I can't take communion, as in a Catholic church, since my taking of communion is what it is between me and my Savior, not what the people there think it is. But I respect their wishes anyway.

    Our church tells people that to receive communion, they must be saved, whether they are a member of our church or not. As to accepting new members, after examination of the facts, we will recognize a true "believer's baptism" from another church as valid, even if it was not Baptist. We call that "by Christian Experience."
     
  4. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    No. If they can't take my word that I was already baptized, they have problems.

    \

    I would speak to the pastor after the service to ask why a believer, a brother in Christ was denied to partake.

    I would stay away from this church. This is legalism at it's finest (or worse).
     
  5. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    Hmmmm. At first, I'd say no. OTOH, I have this dream of someday going to the Holy Land and getting baptized in the Jordan River, even though I was baptised as a believer already. So I guess that means I'm not against voluntary repeated baptism.

    I've always felt strongly that each church is allowed the automomous liberty of deciding these things form themselves. If they want to restrict communion to strictly their own members, or their own denomination, I'd have to say it's their right to do so, even if I don't like their choice.
     
  6. Bro Tony

    Bro Tony
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree totally with webdog here. I also have been to the Holy Land twice and am going again next May----I baptized several of my people in the Jordan. (John we have room for others if you want to go [​IMG] ) But as John said, on a voluntary basis. That is a far cry from making it mandatory.

    I also visited a SBC church in New Mexico a few years ago who told us that they were going to have communion and all non-members were asked to refrain. I thought it strange that I could someday serve as pastor of this church but I could not share the Lord's table. I agree each church is autonomous and has the right to keep others from taking the Lord's Supper, but that does not make it biblically right.

    Bro Tony
     
  7. FundamentalDan

    FundamentalDan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2001
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would stay away from this church. This is legalism at it's finest (or worse). </font>[/QUOTE]Well, I guess I will chime in and be the dissenting voice. Our church does not just accept that someone says they were baptized as good enough. The majority of the people down here will tell you they were baptized as a baby. According to Acts 2:41-42, you have to receive God's Word first, and I have seen no babies yet that could do that. I would have to question you as to what the mode of baptism was, whether it was after your salvation, and whether you believe it was for salvation or just after salvation. If you do not like that, that is okay. I will shake your hand and say, "Thank you for coming. I hope God will lead you to the right church."

    However, as for communion, I believe that the Bible says, "Let a man so examine himself." It is a personal responsibility that must be taken on an individual basis. I do not believe I could in good conscience permit someone to take the Lord's supper in my church who was under church discipline of another church of like faith and practice, but I cannot possibly know who all is attending and where they stand. The Bible says the proper examination is self-examination. And, no, I personally would not take communion in any church where I am not a member. That is just a personal thing. But I sure would not take communion in a church that believes I am eating the literal flesh of Christ. Nobody is going to mistake me for a cannibal.
     
  8. Kiffen

    Kiffen
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Messages:
    641
    Likes Received:
    0
    No I would not since that would seem to be mocking my first baptism. It would seem that only hyper landmarkers would hold this view. Of course most Baptist Churches require those baptized as a baby to receive believer's baptism since that is reasonable.

    I have no problem with that even if I slightly disagree.
    [​IMG]
     
  9. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would stay away from this church. This is legalism at it's finest (or worse). </font>[/QUOTE]Well, I guess I will chime in and be the dissenting voice. Our church does not just accept that someone says they were baptized as good enough. The majority of the people down here will tell you they were baptized as a baby. According to Acts 2:41-42, you have to receive God's Word first, and I have seen no babies yet that could do that. I would have to question you as to what the mode of baptism was, whether it was after your salvation, and whether you believe it was for salvation or just after salvation. If you do not like that, that is okay. I will shake your hand and say, "Thank you for coming. I hope God will lead you to the right church."

    </font>[/QUOTE]I'm sorry. I meant biblical baptism. I was assuming from the OP that the person was baptized, not as an infant, but biblically. I agree that infant baptism is not biblical. Of course the church should ask if someone has been baptized according to the Bible. If you have, and the church still requires you to be baptized after knowing this, THEN the church has issues in trusting the words of another believer.
     
  10. rufus

    rufus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Depends on the "Why?"

    Sorry, but unless you are a member of the church I pastor, you would NOT be allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper (I Cor. 11)

    At the church I pastor, new converts are baptized before they are allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper. But those coming by letter or statement are allowed to partake as soon as the letter is okayed or the statement is accepted.

    Rufus
     
  11. elijah_lives

    elijah_lives
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    472
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, but unless you are a member of the church I pastor, you would NOT be allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper (I Cor. 11)

    Am I missing something? I couldn't find anything in that chapter that restricted communion to members of a particular congregation. Exactly what are you basing this on? If we are all members of the body of Christ, why shouldn't we celebrate this together by taking communion as a body? While I recognize that this is a matter for each congregation to decide, it seems to breed division and disunity.
     
  12. buckster75

    buckster75
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2005
    Messages:
    792
    Likes Received:
    0
    What if a "churched" person visits your chuch. We are obligated to hold our members accountable. We won't know too much about a visitor.
     
  13. Rachel

    Rachel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2004
    Messages:
    3,939
    Likes Received:
    0
    No. If they can't take my word that I was already baptized, they have problems.

    \

    I would speak to the pastor after the service to ask why a believer, a brother in Christ was denied to partake.

    I would stay away from this church. This is legalism at it's finest (or worse).
    </font>[/QUOTE]I agree completely.
     
  14. rufus

    rufus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please, as quickly as you can, get back to I Cor. 11 and carefully read that again. "When you come together as a church...." Paul says.

    Also, see I Cor. 5.

    Rufus
     
  15. USN2Pulpit

    USN2Pulpit
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,641
    Likes Received:
    0
    Context is an important issue, isn't it? The argument seems to be that since the phrase "together as a church" appears within the same group of verses, that there is an inherant command that the Lord's Table is to be "closed." Yes, Paul was writing to a church family, but nowhere does he say the Lord's Supper is not to be offered to someone outside the local church membership. It's simply not in the Book.

    To me, the logic behind "closed communion" reads more like an algebraic equation - drawing x's and y's from little tidbits of bible verses to suit the viewpoint.

    I'm sincere in this: I just don't see it the way that my "closed communion" brethren do. Would anyone argue the fact that when Paul wrote (under inspiration of the Holy Spirit) that he was direct, pull-no-punches, and to-the-point?

    If so, why would he have not been direct, pull-no-punches, and to-the-point by putting it in black & white: "The Lord's Supper is for the local church membership only!"?
     
  16. Jeffrey H

    Jeffrey H
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    1
    Q#1: No. Baptism is a one-time event.
    Q#2: I would not agree with their position, but I would be okay with it.
     
  17. elijah_lives

    elijah_lives
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    472
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rufus, I still don't see scriptural authority for closed communion. USN2Pulpit makes a valid point that Paul is addressing division in 1 Cor 11:17, and 1 Cor 5 is addressing associating with saints who are in gross sin, not partaking of communion by those who are not.

    If we are part of the invisible Church (as opposed to the visible church), we are all part of the body of Christ. Doesn't your position contradict the spirit of one body? As for not knowing the state of the visitor, that's why 1 Cor 11:27-29 places the onus of responsibility on the individual partaking of the Lord's Supper.

    I think it breeds division.
     
  18. Bro. James

    Bro. James
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,643
    Likes Received:
    15
    If I may kibbitz for one thought: open communion and universal invisible assembly are consistent; closed communion and visible, local only assembly are consistent.

    The problem is: both doctrines cannot be in harmony with the Word of God.

    Now what?

    Selah,

    Bro. James
     
  19. rufus

    rufus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Messages:
    730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's stick with the NT local visible, closed communion truth. [​IMG]
     
  20. USN2Pulpit

    USN2Pulpit
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,641
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bro. James, why do you say only one of those can be true? Why cannot the two both be in harmony with God's Word?
     

Share This Page

Loading...