How we practice communion

I suspect your view closer to the majority of members of my church. We have no official stance, but I'd say we're closer to CLOSE (not closed) communion--that is, Baptist believers only.

I see the local church as more than the expression of the body of Christ. It is the body of Christ. (I Cor 12:27 YE (the local congregation at Corinth) are the body of Christ.)

 

As far the Lord's Table Christ made it clear what it was about and who should partake.
Luke 22: 19And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
20Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

This do in remembrance of Me Christ said. The Lord's Table is a time of remembrance of what He did for us. When observed it should be done as a very special occasion. All sin should be confessed by anyone partaking of it. Who did Christ serve that night, His followers. Who should be allowed to partake those that are Christ. He made it clear in Matthew 28:20 those who have followed His commandments of which one was to be baptised. The other to Love one another as He loved us. It is a time of remembrance of the things He did for us in giving His body and shedding His blood to pay the penalty for our sins. No where in scripture will you find the command that the participants must be a member of a specific brand of church to partake. Paul made it clear that those who do partake must ensure that they are worthy, that means it isn't my place to determine that. But as a solemen sacred service which is a very rare thing these days those not worthy would realize their need for confession and fellowship with God before they partake of it. I rarely partake of the Lord's Table today, not because I am unworthy but because of the way it is conducted. It appears to me to be just soemthing we do because that what we are supposed to do, I even heard a guy comment after our Pastor concluded serving the Table following the morning service that he wanted two of the wafers and only received one, what are we coming too when we don't revernce the time. I have a hard time with a serving the Lord's Table after the regular morning service because their is no memorial no sacred time to ensure you are worthy, just conduct the normal service and then business as usaul serving the Table. I want this time to be a special and sacred time a time for the Family members the members of God family to reflect on what Christ did for us and then check to see that we are worthy to participate, that is the important thing, as often as ye do this do it in REMEBRANCE OF ME!

 

As an addition I hear folks today say they have the Lord's Table on Sunday Morning so that as many ofthe mebers as possible can partake. I have to wonder about this thinking, if they really want to partake why wouldn't they come to a special sacred evening service dedicated as a memorial service to Christ? Many want to make church things convient for people instead of asking them to sacrifice one Sunday night every quarter or so to partake of the Lord's Table in this sacred of all services.

 

Were Christ's 12 disciples baptized believers when He instituted the first Lord's Supper?

(And, I'm not arguing that unbaptized persons be allowed to take the Supper, just asking the question!)

 

Well he had just washed there feet. Several had been baptized by John. So can we take that as Baptism?

 

Good question! Neither of those things was baptism into the Lord in the proscribed manner though.

Were the disciples "saved" before the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost? That is another good question to contemplate...

Sort of makes us sit back and think about what we teach and why. Is it tradition that we've learned, so we think it is right, or is it right because the Word of God says so?

Just so that I don't leave that question hanging there open-ended, we know that baptism is not salvific, but it is the first act of obedience. We might assume that the 12 were obedient in other critical ways, and they may have been baptized -- we just weren't told specifically. And, Paul gave us the formula that we use for the Lord's Supper, in rather specific terms, so we're not totally in the dark, nor do we have to set aside our ordinances!

But, I do think that the questions above should give us cause for additional study.

 

Who would have performed the baptism of the 12? Would Jesus have done it, we aren't told He did. We aren't told in the Acts that the Apostles were Baptized but Baptism is definity seen there as Phillip the deacon baptized the eunuch. So that is one of those things the Holy Spirit never revealed. Jesus said the disciples were clean but not all one would betray Him, so yes they were saved before Pentecost by Jesus confession that they were clean. That also tends to prove the point in our other post that believers can be carnal when their walk gets unclean and they need to be made clean. Jesus showed us this by the cleansing of the disciples walk that night.

 

Hmmm, wasn't one of the qualifications for an apostle that he had to have been baptized by John the Baptist? Acts 1:22

 

Did John the Baptist preceed the institution of the church? He was never a member of any local congregation, which is the definition most often used here on the board (seeing as so many argue against a church universal!).