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

The Bible staes ONLY that a believer in jesus is able to take the communion, and that he needs to be in "good standing" at the time of taking it before the Lord...

Its a stretch to add water Baptism, as that would appear to be the requirement for official local church membership, sign to assembly that one has placed faith in jesus and been saved by God...

My church has "open" communion, we do not check baptism modes, or if even been water baptise, but do require them to be saved!

Think also the question of just HOW one sees the church, what baptism is, closed/open communion etc comes into play on this OP!

 

Before I was baptized I openly proclaimed Christ in the college newspaper in college. Later in the free speech platform. What I saw in other Christians led me to believe that baptism was nothing more than a dunk in the water especially when I saw how some of them lived and did not proclaim Christ except inside the church building.

If a church believes that one must be baptized to partake of the Lord's Supper then they must always have a baptismal service.

 

Baptism in the early church had far more meaning then today. To have been baptized in the early Chruch one could have lost his life for naming Christ as Lord and renouncing the emperor as lord.

What would be the equivalent in America?

 

I agree with you. I also agree with Tom Butler that the Lord's Supper is for local church members only.

My church will baptize at any time. If someone is saved in a service, we will (if they choose) baptize them at that service, whether the water heater was turned on or not .

 

The sad thing is that your experience is the same for many because of many who lead our churches baptism is treated like "nothing more than a dunk in the water" as they put it off with excuses and then justify it in their own minds. If they really felt it to be important nothing would get in the way of baptizing new converts as they are saved as is the biblical example. Even if it is done in a bathtub or in something else if it was properly honored and sanctified it would be done and not put off or neglected.

After I was saved I was on the way to be baptized and was in a motor cycle wreck. It had been snowing but was just cold and rainy and I was bleeding and my clothes were shredded. This happened on a rural road with very little traffic and a guy came by and stopped and I asked him to take me to the church down the road and he shouted through his open window that he was not driving to any church and sped off leaving me there alone wet, bleeding and with my clothing shredded. I left the motor cycle in the ditch and I walked about 5 miles to get to that church where I was then baptized. By the time I got there the service was almost over and I refused to take medical attention or to leave until I was Baptized. Nothing was more important to me then that baptism as it was my first command after salvation and it identified me publically with the Lord. Many others have put their lives on the line just to be baptized knowing that they could be murdered for doing it and yet today many just do it when ever. Certainly we have lost our way. The liberal agenda has so over taken our hearts and churches many have no clue as to what it means to be a Christian and because of that the world does not know what it means. The salt is losing its taste.
Today for many that identification means little to nothing as they feel they can do it any time that fits their schedule and many churches (the leadership) promote that mind set by their actions.

 

For most there isn't any equivalent as baptism has little to no regard in importance for most churches as it is nothing but a ritual to many to do at our convenience. :tear:

 

I agree with you. For any church to say that there are "logistical" or "practical" problems that keep them from baptizing someone right away is absurd. If they are unable to baptize people right away, they have no business running a church.

 

Sounds like you have another excuse and what is wrong with a bathtub? There is no command for the congregation to watch, just to be Baptized. The eunuch in Acts had no congregation to watch but his heart wanted to obey contrary to what we see in the church today so he was baptized.

 

Well, without knowing the exact situation there I obviously can't come up with an exact solution. Some ideas however, would be:

• Use a hottub or pool at someone's house
• Use a portable baptistry at your location or someone's house
• Go to the nearest lake, river, or pond
• Rent a hotel room (at your location) and baptize. Who said everyone needs to see it?

 

Ann, I appreciate your church's logistical problem, and don't wish to be critical. In fact, these days, maybe we ought not to be so quick to dunk new converts until we've talked further with them following their conversion. We need to make sure of their understanding of what's happening to them.

That said, a delay of several months does seem to be too long.

Re: the OP, Paul wrote in I Corinthians 11:2, telling the congregation to "guard the ordinances." That means to me that the congregation has the authority to decide whom it will baptize. Thus, baptism is a local church ordinance.

Later in Chapter 11, Paul deals with the right and wrong ways to observe the Lord's supper.

I think it's reasonable to assert that Paul was writing to baptized believers, members of the congregation at Corinth. Paul was instructing baptized believers on the proper way to have the LS.

That's why I hold that the LS is for baptized believers.

I also hold a minority view that only baptized members of a local church should participate--closed communion. My view is based partly on the question of church discipline, but that's another story.

 

I agree Tom. I also believe in closed communion.

 

the person taking the Communion must be saved, washed in the blood of Christ...

jesus sees Him as belong to the Body of Christ, His own Church, so why deny based upon something that does not affect His eternal standing one way or another?

Can we really close off communion to them who Jesus sees as being part of His flock?

 

What if someone is saved on their death bed and wants to take communion? If they are too sick to get baptized, would you reject them wanting to partake of the Lord's body, seeing that they have been saved? What do y'all think about this scenario?

 

I, personally, would serve tem myself, if I had to. I wouldn't want to not serve them, considering their circumstances. But I agree that each church should handle this the way they seem fit.

 

Good. I know that this probably isn't the normative case, but one worthy of thoughts and prayers, don't you think?