Baptisim required to take communion?

[AndrewDrechsel]

I was troubled today after visiting a new church and the pastor said if you aren't baptized you can observe but not take part in communion. I am a born again, baptized believer and I believe that Jesus was baptized so we should all be. having said that I don't think any born again, saved believer should ever be kept from communion if it is their wish to do so and are right with God. can someone help bring clarity to this for me?

 

[football5680]

having said that I don't think any born again, saved believer should ever be kept from communion if it is their wish to do so and are right with God. can someone help bring clarity to this for me?

If they have not been baptized then they have not been born again so receiving communion would be a great sin.

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 11:27)

So there are two reasons why they should not be given communion. The first is that it would be a sin for the individual who participates in an unworthy manner and the second reason is that Christians should not be a stumbling block to another believer by allowing it to take place. If we simply look away and ignore it then we are guilty of not loving our neighbor like we love our self.

 

[pshun2404]

I was troubled today after visiting a new church and the pastor said if you aren't baptized you can observe but not take part in communion. I am a born again, baptized believer and I believe that Jesus was baptized so we should all be. having said that I don't think any born again, saved believer should ever be kept from communion if it is their wish to do so and are right with God. can someone help bring clarity to this for me?

Why would an alleged Spirit Born believer not allow themselves to be the recipient of something Christ commanded be done to them? Since the Torah immersion in a Mikvah (pool or bath) was always God's designed intention for officiating ones consecration unto holiness. Whether it is regenerational or not has nothing to do with it...get yourself baptized because it is God's plan not your's...doing God's thing your way removes it from being God's way...your way or Yahweh? Jesus was baptized, baptized, commanded His disciples (a 120 at least) to baptize...every person saved (whether they received the Spirit before or after) was/is should be baptized BECAUSE GOD designed the plan of salvation NOT MAN's LOGIC OR REASONING....resistance to being baptized (for any reason) shows a resistance and rebellion in YOUR spirit...
(not that you are not His child...I believe you are...but you are a naughty child and I hope Dad gives you a good whooping)....

Now then, even before Jesus in Qumran the communion meal (only bread and wine, looking forward to Messiah) one had to be ritually washed first...this immersion ALWAYS represented in Israel a death to the old order and an entrance into a new order...likewise after Jesus....ONLY the baptized were allowed to partake of Communion...the pastor was right to deny you...why should he merely take your word for your being born from above...you could be a liar...

When Cornelius's household had the Holy Spirit fall on them...Peter asks why or how can they be denied water (it is a blessing...a wonderful part of God actually declaring you Holy and cleansed) and they were all baptized...

So you should you be or will you let your stubborn streak resist the will of God? All non-baptized people should be denied the Lord's Table...

 

[AndrewDrechsel]

I guess I wasn't clear, I am baptized, I was troubled for those who may have been there and not yet baptized. some new believers don't baptized right away whether it be they don't understand it, haven't found the church body or whatever the case may be. I would agree that if one is refusing to get baptized or living in known sin than they shouldn't take communion. I have now talked to folks on both sides of the debate and I see its a long standing discrepancy in the evangelical world.

 

[Bobinator]

I feel that communion has morphed into something resembling more of a ceremony as opposed to what it actually represents. If you examine the context of 1Cor. 11;27, Paul is talking about people who are greedily consuming all the food and drink without consideration for others, when the purpose of such gatherings (observing the Lord's Supper) is to give of ones self, to fellowship and minister to one another.

The body of Christ (the bread) reminds us that Christ crucified the flesh and gave his life for others. The blood (wine) was shed to intercede on our behalf. Observing the Lord's supper is to intended for us to put other's needs before our own and love our neighbor even as ourselves. If you recall, Jesus washed his disciples' feet before the supper and said we ought to do it for one another. No man is greater than his master.

If we continue to gather as Christians but are only there to serve ourselves and feed our glutenous and selfish needs, than we are unworthy of Christ.

Glad this subject was brought up. I learned a little more today.

 

[1watchman]

Baptism is an act of faithfulness and obedience to take a stand for the Lord against the unbelieving world. The Lord's supper and baptism are the only two ordinances given for Christians by our Lord. Since the table of the Lord is a place of holiness, only those who bow to the Lord in baptism as He asks of us is worthy to be at that holy place ---and that only if the one is also a "born again" believer.

 

[cyberlizard]

my wife was brought up in the Plymouth Brethren movement in the UK and their way of resolving this was that each church member would carry a letter of commendation. Most Brethren believers only tend to fellowship in other Brethren believers assemblies and so they would take a letter if they were going on holiday for instance so that the assembly they visited would be aware of their 'credentials'.



Steve

 

[pshun2404]

I guess I wasn't clear, I am baptized, I was troubled for those who may have been there and not yet baptized. some new believers don't baptized right away whether it be they don't understand it, haven't found the church body or whatever the case may be. I would agree that if one is refusing to get baptized or living in known sin than they shouldn't take communion. I have now talked to folks on both sides of the debate and I see its a long standing discrepancy in the evangelical world.

Only in the past 300 years or so...for 1500 years there was never any doubt. None of the leaders taught by the Apostles or their students ever considered such a sham. Yes you must be baptized to receive Communion...the truth of God's messiah does not change because of mastery of rhetoric or the ability to make persuasive arguments. Anyone who teaches otherwise has snuck into the fold some other way (but not through Jesus)....

Go ye therefore into all the world baptizing in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, TEACHING THEM TO OBSERVE AND DO ALL that I have commanded you....end of story!

 

[1watchman]

my wife was brought up in the Plymouth Brethren movement in the UK and their way of resolving this was that each church member would carry a letter of commendation. Most Brethren believers only tend to fellowship in other Brethren believers assemblies and so they would take a letter if they were going on holiday for instance so that the assembly they visited would be aware of their 'credentials'.

Steve

True! As being among those in the "brethren movement", of which the PB's are also part, I see that the letter of commendation is very true to Scripture (see any concordance on the subject). Otherwise one appearing at the gathering may not be a real "born again" Christian, or may be carnal and living in sin against God, so they should not be embraced at the Lord's Table, which is a holy place. God holds the assembly responsible for holiness.

 

[hedrick]

It depends upon the Church. If you believe in baptismal regeneration there may be additional concerns. But if not, I think it's a result of Paul's warning about taking communion unworthily. In some congregations this leads to checking out all guests to make sure they are in good standing. But as a minimum, it seems reasonable to say that we should only admit Christians. Baptism is a traditional way of defining who is a Christian.

Of course baptism can't tell you whether someone is actually in good standing with God. But there's no way we can do that. All we can do is check someone's visible status. And baptism is the way someone is admitted to the visible community of Christians.

For much of Church history, we could reasonably assume that most people grew up Christian, and were baptized from infancy. So it didn't exclude anyone who should have been included.

But there's another issue. Communion is a sign of the Christian community. It's not just an individual act, but an expression of our fellowship with each other as part of the one vine. I believe that in the early Church the main issue would have been catechumens, people who were under instruction but not yet members. My understanding is that they did not participate in communion. Clearly part of this is that the Church was still watching to see that their lives reflected Christ before being willing to make them formal members. So it was still not clear that they were worthy. But I think a big part of it is that they weren't part of the Church yet, and communion is an act of the Church.

Today the situation is more complex, because we have children who grew up in denominations that don't baptize infants, and we have "church shopping" and unchurched Christians.

I guess in principle I would still say that if someone isn't willing to make the public commitment of baptism, it doesn't make sense for them to participate in communion. But in the case of older children who are clearly Christian, and are participating in a Church (e.g. Sunday School or youth group) but are not yet baptized because of their parents' decision, it's not their fault, and I'd be included to make an exception.

As to someone who is the modern equivalent of a catechumen, which I think is the OP's concern, I don't feel strongly. But communion is an expression of the fellowship of the Church, not just an individual act. I don't think it's unreasonable to wait until someone is formally part of the Church before having them participate in its visible sign.