Communion in Children's Church

When I was the minister of Children's Ministries, I insisted the children be brought into the sanctuary for communion. I believe it should be done as a congregation and as a family.

Also when there were baptisms, we brought the children into the sanctuary for the same reason.

 

We teach our children this.

Several by self examination decided not to partake.

 

We teach our children this.

Several by self examination decided not to partake.

 

Can one have a proper spiritual condition without being baptized? I would say no. I don't see anyway to be an obedient Christian without being baptized. That is why I say what I do. As I mentioned earlier, we should not assume that something is "flexible" because it is not spelled out explicitly.

Not necessarily ... I think they were people living in unrepentant sin who were bringing reproach on the body.

 

Although I disagree with your conclusion regarding this, I want to ask whether you think it is ok that simply because scripture is silent on something, that it is ok to 'add' it to our practice.

You say there is no scripture supporting only baptized members to partake of the Lord's supper, you als say there is no scripture saying unbapized members cannot, so, because of this you are unwilling to restrain unbaptized believers, but willing to add to the scripture that unbaptized believers are permitted.

The overall authority of scripture doesn't provide an example apart from the theif on the cross who was unbaptized very soon after repenting and believing.

In fact, we do not know by scripture that the thief was not a baptized disciple. Do we know he was not among those who found Jesus' teaching on the Bread of Life hard to take and quit following him?

Bro. Dallas

 

Larry: Can one have a proper spiritual condition without being baptized? I would say no. I don't see anyway to be an obedient Christian without being baptized. That is why I say what I do.

I regularly encourage children to wait before they are baptized. I want them to grasp more fully what being baptized means. It would be very common for a child to embrace Christ and be a genuine believer and yet wait years before they are baptized, so the answer to your question "can one have a proper spiritual condition and not be baptized?" is yes. There would be other instances where an adult might have to wait and be baptized as well. I had a man in his 30s who severely cut his hands in a work-related accident a week before he was to be baptized. He had to wait for about 3 months before he could be baptized. Should he abstain from the Lord's Supper in the process?

Larry: we should not assume that something is "flexible" because it is not spelled out explicitly.

But when something is not spelled out explicitly it is more likely that there is some flexibility involved.

Larry: Not necessarily ... I think they were people living in unrepentant sin who were bringing reproach on the body.

So the key issue is "how is your heart".

Don't misunderstand me in this discussion. I have serious problems with adults who claim to commit their life to Christ and refused to be baptized. I find no unbaptized believers in the NT (even though we are not told they are all baptized). But we cannot make black-white, no-exception policies where the Scripture is descriptive or incomplete.

 

Frog: I want to ask whether you think it is ok that simply because scripture is silent on something, that it is ok to 'add' it to our practice.

This question must be directed at both sides of this issue. Requiring baptism before participation in the LS is "adding" a practice that is not spelled out in the NT.

Furthermore, I have demonstrated numerous times on this board that one cannot be consistent with a "what's only in the Bible" approach to methodology.

Frog: because of this you are unwilling to restrain unbaptized believers, but willing to add to the scripture that unbaptized believers are permitted.

No. What I am arguing against is the notion that the Scriptures require baptism as a prerequisite for church membership.

Frog: The overall authority of scripture doesn't provide an example apart from the theif on the cross who was unbaptized very soon after repenting and believing.

The moment you introduce "apart from" into the equation, you have just proven that human interpretation and application is involved.

Frog: In fact, we do not know by scripture that the thief was not a baptized disciple. Do we know he was not among those who found Jesus' teaching on the Bread of Life hard to take and quit following him?

No more than we know if all those who were participating in Communion were baptized. Both instances are mere speculation and therefore should not be viewed as prescriptive but descriptive.

 

Dear SBCbyGRACE,
Which one of the disciples present when the Lord instituted the Lord's Supper was not baptized?

That is enough scripture explicitly speaking on this subject to warrant the practice of baptized believers only.

Bro. Dallas

 

Frogman,

Can you direct me to the text that says they were all baptized? And can you point me to where Jesus even spoke of baptism in relation to the Lord's Supper?

Based upon your logic, we had better all get on our robes and lie on the floor in an Upper Room in Jerusalem as well.

 

Based upon what you are saying we ought to receive all into the church with all the blessings associated with it. And don't stop there, let's ordain everyone while we are at it too.

What do you mean were they all baptized? They were all former disciples of John. That required baptism.

Bro. Dallas

 

Bro Dallas,

I am going to have to go with SBCbyGRACE on this. I don't believe he is condoning the Lord's Supper be given to unregenerated individuals regardless of their age. He is correct that there is no Scriptural pre-requisite of baptism in order to take the Lord's Supper. He or I are not down playing the importance of baptism, but there are occasions that it is not possible to immerse people, should they be refused the Lord's Supper? I had a gentleman who because of a medical condition had to be sponged bathed and the doctor would not allow him to be immersed, should I have told him that he could not share in communion? I don't believe so, and I did not.

By the way, while it may be true that the disciples of Jesus were baptized by John. I don't believe John's baptism was believer's baptism; do you? Remember there was a group of disciples of John in the book of Acts who had not received the Holy Spirit, and that had to happen for them, therefore although they were baptized by John it was not because they had believed in Jesus. Just a little imput. God bless all of you as you serve Him.

Bro Tony

 

Frogman: Based upon what you are saying we ought to receive all into the church with all the blessings associated with it. And don't stop there, let's ordain everyone while we are at it too.

The only thing I am saying is that the Bible nowhere requires baptism as a prerequisite for participation in the Lord's Supper.

If you want to provide an actual text, then we can discuss this.

Frogman: What do you mean were they all baptized? They were all former disciples of John. That required baptism.

If you could once again just provide us a verse to support your hypothesis, this conversation can progress.

 

I am very comfortable with the idea of Communion in Children's Church. Why not bring them into the sanctuary for communion?

One of the problems I find with Baptist churches is that most of us have a low view of Communion and explains why it has been regimented into a quarterly or yearly event. Personaly I think Communion should be served every Sunday.

 

Yep. This is what's bothering me about this thread. Why isn't communion done with the whole of the church together? Isn't that part of the point of communion? I like having my children with me for the celebration of the Lord's supper. We celebrate as a family along with all the other believers in our local church.

And is it really true that some Baptist churches only serve communion quarterly or yearly? Ach!

 

I have not spoken of the original issue concerning the Lord's Supper in Children's Church. I am in agreement with Kiffin & Russell. I think that the Lord's Supper is a special time for the Body of Christ and should be celebrated by the family of God--together!!

Bro Tony

 

Chilrden can be taught to discern. We have more discerning chilren presnet Sunday than many churches have during the Lor's Supper.

 

We approached it with more soberness than 95% of churches ever doing the Lord's Supper.

But as a parent, more power to you.

 

I became a
Christian when I was 10. I was not able to be baptize because of parental restriction. But, I somehow took part in the Lord's supper, with proper respect.

I later became bapized because I was told only "baptize believers" should take part. I on't believe for a moment I did anything wrong, because I know the attitude which I took it.

 

The Bible does not specify the limits of the body that participates, whether it is the whole congregation, or small groups.

 

I didn't want to get into this, I tried to stay away from it when reading Pastor Larry's statement but here is what I beleive and where I am satisfied to stand, all others as I have said before are free and welcome to stand where they are:

Show me scripture and verse where Jesus changed the baptism of John. Show me scripture and verse that says John's baptism is not christian or 'believer's baptism. What was John's message?

Believe on the one who is to come after me he is preferred over me because he was before me.

Talk about reading into scripture, simply to not offend people, oh my.

Yes, those of whom Christ called as disciples, later apostles were baptized disciples of Jesus. These were different than those baptized by Apollos because Apollos was not gathered with the 'church' on the day of Pentecost when the 'church' received the one historic baptism of the Holy Spirit; therefore, all Apollos knew was the baptism of John. Therefore, those Paul 'rebaptized' were 'rebaptized' because they had not received a proper scriptural baptism through that 'one' body in Jerusalem which body alone had the authority to engage in the great commission.

Whether you take this or not is your business, but this is true, or else Paul would not have 'rebaptized' any; he would simply have prayed and layed hands on them that they would receive the Holy Ghost.

I will stay where I now stand because it is a position with the most scriptural support, unless you can show me where Christ changed the baptism of John and then show me where the administrator's of that baptism received the 'rebaptism' after the changing of their original scriptural baptism, otherwise, you are on the same ground as Campbellism which preached baptismal regeneration beginning in or around 1812, but did not receive this until years later around 1828, now how many did he baptize under the premise he taught, without having received the same baptism himself? One or two or three, would be too many to do in error, wouldn't it?

May God Bless All

Bro. Dallas Eaton