Receiving communion before baptism

PaladinValer

Traditional Orthodox Anglican
Apr 7, 2004
23,587
1,245
42
Myrtle Beach, SC
✟30,305.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
What is the effect otherwise? We're not here to debate whether one should be baptised, but do they drink judgement upon themselves if they aren't?

They partake in condemnation, as St. Paul warns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pdudgeon
Upvote 0

Tangible

Decision Theology = Ex Opere Operato
May 29, 2009
9,837
1,416
cruce tectum
Visit site
✟59,743.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
They partake in condemnation, as St. Paul warns.
Yeah, scripture is pretty clear.

Adults who are converted should be baptized as expediently as possible. To refuse baptism is a red flag indicating unbelief in the Gospel and signalling the need for pastoral care.

To admit such a person to communion would be to unnecessarily risk spiritual harm as they may be doing so without a proper understanding of the sacrament or possibly even without faith in Christ.

While Baptism is administered as an initial means of grace, God thereby working salvation in the recipient, Communion is for believers only, for the forgiveness of sins and the feeding and building up of a believer's faith in Christ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pdudgeon
Upvote 0

MKJ

Contributor
Jul 6, 2009
12,260
776
East
✟23,894.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
What is the effect otherwise? We're not here to debate whether one should be baptised, but do they drink judgement upon themselves if they aren't?

Well, doing so would be making the person a liar.

On the one hand, what are they saying to God if they refuse baptism.

O the other, what are they supposed to be saying when they partake of the Eucharist.

So you have a situation where the person is saying two contradictory things, either to God, to himself, or both. It is not a good idea to lie to God or to oneself - it always ends badly.

It might be possible to think up some odd scenario where that wasn`t the case, where we might say it made sense to do it based on the principle, but I can`t easily think of a realistic one. If it ever happened, then it would make sense to consider it I suppose.
 
Upvote 0
G

godenver1

Guest
They partake in condemnation, as St. Paul warns.

What would be the next step, if one had ignorantly done so? Ask forgiveness I presume?
Well, doing so would be making the person a liar.

On the one hand, what are they saying to God if they refuse baptism.

O the other, what are they supposed to be saying when they partake of the Eucharist.

So you have a situation where the person is saying two contradictory things, either to God, to himself, or both. It is not a good idea to lie to God or to oneself - it always ends badly.

It might be possible to think up some odd scenario where that wasn`t the case, where we might say it made sense to do it based on the principle, but I can`t easily think of a realistic one. If it ever happened, then it would make sense to consider it I suppose.

Just so we're clear, I'm not talking about a refusal to baptism. I'm talking about churches that will administer communion regardless of baptism and allow all to participate. I was never 'warned' pre-baptism to not receive communion, so I did. I guess it depends on your theological stance.
 
Upvote 0

PaladinValer

Traditional Orthodox Anglican
Apr 7, 2004
23,587
1,245
42
Myrtle Beach, SC
✟30,305.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
What would be the next step, if one had ignorantly done so? Ask forgiveness I presume?

That sounds about right.

Just so we're clear, I'm not talking about a refusal to baptism. I'm talking about churches that will administer communion regardless of baptism and allow all to participate. I was never 'warned' pre-baptism to not receive communion, so I did. I guess it depends on your theological stance.

Some places of worship don't, although it is usually safest to ask before hand.

My own parish's rector exhorts that all who have been baptized and are Christians are welcome. I also know that the Roman Catholic Church here in the US has their instructions explicitly states in their Missal and usually in the bulletin as well so it is nigh impossible not to notice.

And yes, it does depend on theological stance.
 
Upvote 0

Tangible

Decision Theology = Ex Opere Operato
May 29, 2009
9,837
1,416
cruce tectum
Visit site
✟59,743.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
In Confessional Lutheran churches, a pastor normally will not commune a person unless s/he is known to him or has spoken to him before the service. I have also seen a pastor pause at the rail and question a would-be communicant, asking if they are baptized and have been confirmed in that particular Lutheran synod. If a person is not communed, an individual blessing is normally given.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pdudgeon
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MKJ

Contributor
Jul 6, 2009
12,260
776
East
✟23,894.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Just so we're clear, I'm not talking about a refusal to baptism. I'm talking about churches that will administer communion regardless of baptism and allow all to participate. I was never 'warned' pre-baptism to not receive communion, so I did. I guess it depends on your theological stance.

Yes, but they are wrong to allow that because it puts people in this difficult position. They should baptize those who ant to commit themselves to Christ. They should normally be receiving teaching about what that involves too, what responsibilities are associated with it.

It certainly isn't the fault of those who do not know any better if they participate. I don't think there is anything significant that has to happen if they realize it was an error. Confessing it wouldn't hurt but the important thing would be to move on in the right direction.
 
Upvote 0

Tellastory

Hebrews 13:13
Mar 10, 2013
780
43
In God's Hand
✟16,186.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
They partake in condemnation, as St. Paul warns.

How do you not know that taking the bread at communion under the belief that Christ's Presence is in it is not part of Paul's warning?

Matthew 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

The above reference is what 1 John 4:2 is talking about in testing the spirits.

1 John 4:1Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. 4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

Many believers think John was referring to any doubting that Jesus had come in the flesh at all, but not so. This is about testing the spirits and the use of the term "is come" means presently as in where He abides.

So in according to our faith that Jesus Christ is in us and that which is outside of us is the spirit of the antichrist, the Eucharist is an unclean thing because it has become an idol.

That which was made by man, bread, and treating it as a living "god" is an idol.

That is why Jesus & Paul had said to do communion in remembrance of Him, because you cannot receive Jesus "again".

2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

There is no way the Eucharist can avoid these scripture as reproofs.

Protestants should drop the term sacrament because the bread and the wine are not sacred: it is taking it in remembrance of what He has done is the ordinance to follow.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil. 23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.

If Lutherans are to expect Catholics to question their practises in according to the scripture, then Lutherans should lead by example in the event that they are carryings some things over from catholicism that they should not have.

John 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. 34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. 35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Never in John 6th chapter was Jesus talking about communion but how we are saved, and that is by coming to & believing in Jesus Christ. The RCC based their doctrine on what Jesus said to the Pharisees and not on what He had said to His disciples in that chapter and He did point out to His disciples what He did to the Pharisees that they did not all believe that.

John 6:36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.

John 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Although Paul was reproving the ignorant practise of eating and drinking their fill when having communion wherein he said for those that do such thing to eat at home, thus come to church not hungry, hopefully by His grace & by His help, Lutherans as well as Protestants are due for another reformation if they expect Catholics to see clearly their error by His grace & by His help.

1 Corinthians 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. 33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

How do you not know that taking the bread at communion under the belief that Christ's Presence is in it is not a part of Paul's warning? Look at what Paul had said before that chapter.

1 Corinthians 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. 18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. 22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he? 23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

For anyone to claim they are consecrating the bread & wine at communion to contain His Presence is to testify that they are stronger than the Lord to make this happen.

And yet other scripture would reprove such notions that there ever was a "presence" in the bread & the wine, and thus truly symbolic.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PaladinValer

Traditional Orthodox Anglican
Apr 7, 2004
23,587
1,245
42
Myrtle Beach, SC
✟30,305.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
How do you not know that taking the bread at communion under the belief that Christ's Presence is in it is not part of Paul's warning?

<snip>

Straw Man reply since Real Presence theology has nothing to do with my actual argument nor even this topic. The topic is about receiving Holy Communion before receiving Holy Baptism.

Furthermore, as a sidenote, quoting the KJV against Anglican theology has got to be among the most absurd tactics since it was translated under Anglican auspices to PROMOTE, DEFEND, AND EXPOUND UPON ANGLICAN IDEAS, PRACTICES, BELIEFS, AND THEOLOGY, which includes Real Presence theology.

Now that both your attempt to sidetrack has been both denied and also obliterated, can my actual argument be addressed please?
 
Upvote 0

Tellastory

Hebrews 13:13
Mar 10, 2013
780
43
In God's Hand
✟16,186.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
<snip>

Straw Man reply since Real Presence theology has nothing to do with my actual argument nor even this topic. The topic is about receiving Holy Communion before receiving Holy Baptism.

Furthermore, as a sidenote, quoting the KJV against Anglican theology has got to be among the most absurd tactics since it was translated under Anglican auspices to PROMOTE, DEFEND, AND EXPOUND UPON ANGLICAN IDEAS, PRACTICES, BELIEFS, AND THEOLOGY, which includes Real Presence theology.

Now that both your attempt to sidetrack has been both denied and also obliterated, can my actual argument be addressed please?

In a court of law, you opened the door by your response here.

They partake in condemnation, as St. Paul warns.

You cannot make a comment like that which was taken out of place in what Paul was saying in applying to what you were saying without some rebuttal.

The condemnation that Paul was actually talking about referred to church members coming to have communion in seeking to satisfy their hunger for which he instructed them to eat at home to avoid such comdemnation.

1 Corinthians 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord....33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. 34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

Now you can apply that towards other unworthy manners in having communion, for which I was addressing and expounding upon as scripture does agree elsewhere of how and why I had purported would be an unworthy manner.

But if you wish to get back to the OP as you said: then you need to recognize that water baptism is not necessary for salvation and thus is not necessary to have communion.

Paul would have a problem with that.

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God....21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Peter would agree with Paul.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. 44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Peter validated that it is by believing in Him is how one receives the remissions of sins and thereby granted the promise of the Holy Ghost which happened before they were baptized by water.

Alot of believers will point to Mark 16:16 for proof of the necessity of water baptism but they keep forgetting that the baptism with the Holy Ghost that Jesus gives at our salvation is the baptism Mark was referring to.

Even Peter referenced to baptism was not of water, but the answer of a good conscience which is by believing in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Peter's reference to water was symbolic and thus not actually referring to water baptism because water is used to put away the filth of the flesh and so it is the answer of a good coscience towards God which is believing the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

To infer that Jesus cannot save anyone until they are water baptised is to declare Jesus as not the actual Saviour but Jesus & water baptism is, and if we lean on Him to get past centuries of church traditions, we can see that eorr as well as the truth that Jesus is able to save anyone without water baptism just by them believing in Him which He has said numerous times on how one is born again to Nicodemus.

John 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Believers need to place their hope on Jesus that He has saved them for that is the true testimony we are to have to the world & to those that err.

Titus 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, 5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; 6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; 7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. 8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly,.....

Something to prayerfully reconsider because there is no danger to a believer partaking of communion without water baptism seeing how he or she is already baptized with the Holy Ghost as promised by Jesus Christ for believing in Him.
 
Upvote 0
G

GratiaCorpusChristi

Guest
To those posters who belong to churches that won't administer communion before baptism, what do you believe happens to those who receive it pre-baptism?

Obviously, not all churches teach this and I didn't grow up with this teaching, what happens then?

They are not united in Christ by baptism (Gal 3:27-28), and being in disunion, they take in in judgment (1 Cor 11).
 
  • Like
Reactions: pdudgeon
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
G

godenver1

Guest
They are not united in Christ by baptism (Gal 3:27-28), and being in disunion, they take in in judgment (1 Cor 11).

However, the blood of Christ cleans one so that they are no longer under the judgment/condemnation of God, even if the sin is sacrilege, yes? (Without going too far off topic) the repentant sinner is forgiven this and other sins in baptism by Christ Crucified?
 
Upvote 0

PaladinValer

Traditional Orthodox Anglican
Apr 7, 2004
23,587
1,245
42
Myrtle Beach, SC
✟30,305.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
In a court of law, you opened the door by your response here.

And then promptly closed it. Your reply violates the rules here and is rendered void, and it is void also since it doesn't address my argument.

That's fact; let's move on.
 
Upvote 0

PaladinValer

Traditional Orthodox Anglican
Apr 7, 2004
23,587
1,245
42
Myrtle Beach, SC
✟30,305.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
However, the blood of Christ cleans one so that they are no longer under the judgment/condemnation of God, even if the sin is sacrilege, yes? (Without going too far off topic) the repentant sinner is forgiven this and other sins in baptism by Christ Crucified?

They cannot receive if they have not yet accepted by the gift of grace in the form of faith. If a person is not in communion with Christ, then one cannot participate in the works of that Mystical Body.

A hand cannot do anything if it isn't attached. No part can exist on its own; it must be alive by being a part of the Body.

Furthermore, it isn't repentant to willingly commit sacrilege; it is a black, violent sin. If one is repentant, they would endeavor to not sin like that again, and the proof of that, in this case, would to get baptized. Otherwise, there is no true repentance because there is no visible sign of it.

Oh, and don't worry about my exchange with the other poster: I will NOT allow it to disrupt your thread and I hope my good faith has been shown. I would advise you, if I may, to report his posts if they continue to go out of topic, because you do have that happy power and it should be used if it continues.
 
Upvote 0

Tellastory

Hebrews 13:13
Mar 10, 2013
780
43
In God's Hand
✟16,186.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
They are not united in Christ by baptism (Gal 3:27-28), and being in disunion, they take in in judgment (1 Cor 11).

That baptism mention in Galatians 3:27-28 is not water baptism but the baptism with the Holy Spirit that Jesus had given us at our salvation.

Galatians 3:1O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?...14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith....26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Nowhere in that reference was the receiving of the promise of the Spirit was by water baptism, but by faith in Jesus Christ. More proof:

Ephesians 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. 15 Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
G

GratiaCorpusChristi

Guest
That baptism mention in Galatians 3:27-28 is not water baptism but the baptism with the Holy Spirit that Jesus had given us at our salvation.

Galatians 3:1O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?...14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith....26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Nowhere in that reference was the receiving of the promise of the Spirit was by water baptism, but by faith in Jesus Christ. More proof:

Ephesians 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. 15 Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,

None of these verses demonstrate that there ever ways any such thing as "Spirit baptism." The baptism of the Spirit is still water baptism, but it objectively gives the Spirit, in contrast to John's baptism, which did not.

That is how every single ancient Christian we know of interpreted the verse, how baptism was actually used and applied in the ancient church, and the only way to understand both the witness of John in the gospels and the witness of Paul and Peter in the epistles. Anything else is flat out refusing to actually take the text seriously. When it says God actually does something in baptism, it means God actually does something in baptism.
 
Upvote 0