Baptism and Lords Supper?

I think open communion is alright. If a person is a believer, he is a member of The Church and should have the chance to partake. We are to examine ourselves. I have been in churches who do it both ways. No. big deal either way. The apostles at the last supper had not been baptized.

 

I dunno. You say the 12 were church members. Had they filled out any cards? Had they been voted on?

 

While I do believe that an obedient believer will be a member of a church, I think it is pretty hard to support from Scripture the statement that "obedience includes church membership". Is there a Scripture you can post here that brings you to this conclusion? Or is it just a tradition of man?

 

I've been asking since the thread opened for scriptural support. Not going to happen.

The list in the BF&M have nothing to do with baptism (or membership in a local church) as a prerequisite for partaking in the Lord's Supper.

Baptist tradition alone has set the standard. RCs are not the only ones whose traditions often supercede Scripture

 

The context is talking about witnessing an event, not participating in it. It appears that the baptism of John refers to Jesus' baptism by John, just as the ascension and resurrection refer to Jesus' ascension and resurrection. An Apostle needed to be a witness to Jesus, from his baptism by John to the day he ascended to heaven.

At least, that's the way I read it.

 

I don't think one can show John baptised them from Acts 1:21-22. I'd rather not force a passage to speak to an issue it doesn't address.

 

Isn't your position also an interpretation? What BCV proves your position?

 

TCassidy, my response was to what I saw as a faulty use of Acts 1:21-22 to prove something it doesn't speak to. If you believe John baptized all the Apostles, I can't prove otherwise -- but I would suggest not claiming Acts 1:21-22 describes these baptisms.

 

Sorry that is not how it works. The one making the assertion that cannot be supported biblically is the one left with the responsibility of offering proof. My position simply reflects the basic biblical teaching -- genuine believers participated in the LS. Anything we add to that basic belief must be proven.

Still waiting.

 

Actually, there was one who was not a genuine believer who participated in the LS. So you are making some kind of interpretation.

 

I thought the Lord's Supper was something Christ taught us to do in remembrance of the sacrifice He made. Seems to me, the passages saying, "Do this in remembrance of me," were written before the first churches formed.

It also seems to me that the observance is separate from the other ordinance.

By Larry's interpretation - only members of your own congregation should be allowed to participate.

I read it as "only Christians" should be allowed to participate.

 

Actually I was referring to the I Cor 11 text. Yet it has also been pointed out that there is no evidence that Judas remained throughout the institution itself. John 13 indicates that Judas left the room before Jesus' lengthy dialogue with the disciples.

If we take the Gospels and 1 Cor 11 together, we discover that the practice was instituted for believers. Anything else (baptism -- membership) are extra biblical. I am not saying they are right or wrong. I am simply saying they are prerequisites that are not found directly in the text.

 

This is starting to sound like a Church of Christ discussion.

Which matters more, the willingness to obey Christ and declare Him before men, via the act of baptism, or the water itself?

Besides - don't most churches accept you for membership and THEN baptize you?

I don't recall the vote on membership acceptance coming AFTER the baptism. I usually hear, "This person has come forward to announce they have accepted Christ as Lord and Savior, and to follow the Lord in Baptism. All in favor of welcoming them into our fellowship say....."

Can't recall ever attending a baptism where they went, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and now church, all in favor of accepting this person into our fellowship...."

 

AAG, I don't expect we have time to hash out all of the harmony of the gospels relating to the institution of the supper, but I would point you to Luke 22:19-23, where it appears that Jesus institutes the Supper and continues speaking to say that Judas' hand is "with me on the table." If his hand was there, he probably was too. But the whole thing is my point - both sides are making an "interpretation" about whether he was there.

As to I Corinthians chapter 11, we must remember it is not just a general to-whom-it-may-concern correspondence, but a letter to the baptized believers of the church of Corinth. So again I would contend that you are making an interpretation, just as much as anyone else.

BTW Trapper, I haven't addressed your original question. IMO, if we follow the biblical precedent - baptizing upon confession - we don't run into the problem of asking them to observe the second ordinance before the first.

 

Actually whether Judas was there or not is irrelevant to my point. My point from the beginning is that if one requires baptism and church membership prior to the participation of communion, then one is adding to what is stated in Scripture.

It is obvious that Jesus spoke his "this do in rememberance of me" words to his followers. Beyond that, there is no prescriptive order on when a person qualifies for participation.

The "open" vs "closed" debate exists b/c it is an interpretive issue. As far as I know, no evangelicals debate on the necessity of salvation prior to participation.

 

There is no verse that says, "thou shalt be baptized in order to take communion." To require such is true legalism and a demonstration of inability to apply truth. Follow closely now:

1. God expects believers to be baptized.
2. Refusal to be baptized (publicly identify with Christ) is disobedience.
3. Disobedient believers are "unworthy" to participate in the Lord's table according to I Cor. 11 as Larry said.

if a conclusion this simple is not Biblical, then nothing is.