# Communion must be served only to baptized believers?



## Quatchu (Feb 8, 2012)

Does anyone know what the scriptural reasons are that Communion must be served only to baptized believers? Had a conversation about this with someone tonight and was not really sure.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 8, 2012)

Because communion is a blessing only those in covenant with God can enjoy. To not be in fellowship with God and to partake is to "eat and drink damnation" to oneself, 1Cor.11:29.

How are we marked as being "in-communion"? By being IN the church, and that door of admission is through baptism. Being in the church, being admitted to the table is part of the discipline of church-life. One cannot be baptized only, or either just generally be an adult member; in addition, one must not be under formal suspension from the table, or be wholly excommunicated.


----------



## ProtestantBankie (Feb 8, 2012)

Being a baptised church member is a neccesary but not a sufficient condition for admittance to the Lord's Supper.


----------



## raekwon (Feb 8, 2012)

The title of this thread is a bit misleading.

_(edit: That's better.)_


----------



## JP Wallace (Feb 8, 2012)

Because taking the sacrament is about the body of Christ. I'm not exegeting the passages here, but rather drawing together the teaching of Scripture

1 Corinthians 10:16 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? 

The body of Christ must be taken two ways:

a) as the spiritual union we have body and spirit with the Lord of our salvation.
b) the Church is the body of Christ

We are called in 1 Cor 11 to discern the Lord's body lest we participate unworthily...

1 Corinthians 11:29 29 For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 

I believe we must take both meanings here....thus someone who is not a member of the body of Christ the Church cannot fully participate in the spiritual communion of the body of Christ.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 8, 2012)

I'll just add, that lots of people today think that participation in the church is a one-way street. They think that the individual is the ultimate authority, that he gets to decide to join and to leave; that all issues of membership are on his terms.

These think of the church's ordinances as something they are entitled to, and that the church is just some sort of spiritual vending machine. No, not just the RCs think this way, but so do thousands of "evangelicals." If you claim that the church has standards he must meet, he gets defensive and abusive, and accuses that church of being "authoritarian." Hey, he can go down the street and be treated a lot better, by a church that is worried about losing attendance.

Well, a good church is sad to lose members and attenders, but it would be sadder to lose Christ's approval--which isn't measured in attendance or dollars.

Belonging to a church is a two-way street. And the authority is exercised toward the individual, because it is in the name of Christ. There is a check on that authority: the collective will/vote of the congregation. But in general, day-to-day, the individual is under authority, as a member of any organization is subject to its regulation. Children are (or ought to be) under parental authority.

The Bible tells us that members are to obey the officers of Christ's church. Twice in Heb.13:7 & 17! There, we are reminded that the officers "watch out for your souls, _as those who must *give account*_." If these accountable subordinate officers admit someone to the Table who shouldn't be there (and that person's SAY SO is _*not*_ sufficient), then these careless persons who were given a charge are liable for this negligence.

It is quite the arrogant private citizen who abuses his magistrate for doing his job, when they thought his job was merely ornamental--that is, always to make them feel the bliss of their own self-importance.


----------



## rbcbob (Feb 8, 2012)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I'll just add, that lots of people today think that participation in the church is a one-way street. They think that the individual is the ultimate authority, that he gets to decide to join and to leave; that all issues of membership are on his terms.
> 
> These think of the church's ordinances as something they are entitled to, and that the church is just some sort of spiritual vending machine. No, not just the RCs think this way, but so do thousands of "evangelicals." If you claim that the church has standards he must meet, he gets defensive and abusive, and accuses that church of being "authoritarian." Hey, he can go down the street and be treated a lot better, by a church that is worried about losing attendance.
> 
> ...




And could we make Bruce's response into a billboard and place them in every city!!!


----------



## au5t1n (Feb 8, 2012)

Well said, Rev. Buchanan.

This is also why I am not a fan of language like "I *go to* ___ church" or "Which church do you *go to*?" I prefer to say I belong to or am a member of my church. It may seem like nit-picking, but our word choice affects the way we think about things.


----------



## TheElk (Feb 8, 2012)

austinww said:


> Well said, Rev. Buchanan.
> 
> This is also why I am not a fan of language like "I *go to* ___ church" or "Which church do you *go to*?" I prefer to say I belong to or am a member of my church. It may seem like nit-picking, but our word choice affects the way we think about things.



Interesting, I make a point to say I *go to* vs. I am a *member of* said church. I am a member of the Church, but I *go to* the local Body of Christ that meets at said location... I am a member of the Church wherever I go, but the church that I fall under authority of depends on my location.


----------



## Unoriginalname (Feb 8, 2012)

Interesting I might start doing that


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Feb 8, 2012)

Here is a scenario: If someone is converted on a Sunday where baptism is not held, should the bread and wine be withheld?


----------



## earl40 (Feb 8, 2012)

Joseph Scibbe said:


> Here is a scenario: If someone is converted on a Sunday where baptism is not held, should the bread and wine be withheld?



Good question. I asked what prevented our pastor from baptizing my sons privately vs. in front of the entire congregation and he responded "well that is how our church does it". What I believe is that we make rules that may go against what scripture may indeed allow as in your real world example.


----------



## jwithnell (Feb 8, 2012)

> Here is a scenario: If someone is converted on a Sunday where baptism is not held, should the bread and wine be withheld?


 In Presbyterian circles, someone would need to meet with the elders and give a creditable profession of faith before being joined to the church and admitted to the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's table.



> Good question. I asked what prevented our pastor from baptizing my sons privately vs. in front of the entire congregation and he responded "well that is how our church does it"


If the church is defined as the body of Christ in a particular location, the real question is: what church are your sons being baptized into if baptized privately? Also, the congregation has responsibilities to the children who are baptized. In one church where I was a member, the baptism included a question to the congregation about their willingness to fulfill their covenant responsibilities.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 8, 2012)

jwithnell said:


> > Here is a scenario: If someone is converted on a Sunday where baptism is not held, should the bread and wine be withheld?
> 
> 
> In Presbyterian circles, someone would need to meet with the elders and give a creditable profession of faith before being joined to the church and admitted to the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's table.
> ...



We are about to join a PCA church.... So this was not an option because of "the rules". I of course am willing to submit to this rule though I do see at least one example of where one apparently is baptized alone with one of the apostles. Thus why I see where a "rule" can overstep what scripture allows.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 8, 2012)

> Communion must be served only to baptized believers?



It's impossible for a session to be infallibly certain regarding whether or not someone is regenerate, although they should ask some Qs.

An adult is to be baptised on a _credible_ profession of faith, and his/her children should be baptised. Baptism is the outer door of the visible church.

The Lord's Supper is the inner door of the visible church. There is no automatic right to the Lord's Supper just because you've been baptised, and right of access to it may be withdrawn from baptised persons at any point after their baptism, even before their first Lord's Supper, because the Lord's Supper is by _accredited_ profession of faith.

Adults coming for baptism will often, or usually, be assessed by the kirk session for their suitability for both sacraments at the same time.

Those who were baptised as children that come to partake of the Lord's Supper for the first time will be assessed for their suitablity for the Lord's Supper.

If you compare baptism and the Lord's Supper in the New Testament you will see that greater carefulness and greater warnings are associated with the Lord's Supper.

*E.g.*


> (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) (I Cor 1:16, ESV)





> Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. (I Cor 11:28, ESV)


----------

