Rom has put it as simply as it can be put.
We have a didactic statement in 1Cor.11:28, in fact it is a command, an imperative, "Do just this:..." It is a "3rd person imperative," a category English grammar lacks (English only presents 2nd person imperatives).
What is commanded?
Self-examination. "A man MUST examine himself."
Rom also pointed out the duty of Elders. They are men "who will have to give an account," Heb.13:17, for how they cared for the souls of those entrusted to them. Couple that duty with the fact that 1Cor.11:27 states that unworthy partaking (and we can presume these eating were members) makes one
guilty; and that v30 states that some persons have died for this sin; and it becomes clear that guarding the Table involves more than simply checking a persons' baptism.
I would think Baptists generally agree, true? Just because a person is a member and baptized, doesn't mean he has automatic access, correct? There's the whole matter of discipline.
As an additional point, we might as well note that there's no presumption that both sacraments speak in the same way, saying exactly the same things. They are different signs, and the nature of each one is different.Consider how baptism
happens to a person, who is essentially passive. This is quite like the new birth, in which men are dead subjects and wholly acted upon. Entrance or initiation into Christ does not engage my will except as an aftereffect.
Whereas in the Lord's Supper, there is a real, willful participation by the partakers. This behavior goes very much in line with our notions of sanctification, which is not an act but a work of God, and one in which our engagement is assumed and granted. The power is not in us, but the new-life principle encourages us to be active and strive.
So, we (Presbyterians) see baptism as an initiatory sign, and communion as the sign of covenant renewal; the one is a sign of identification, the other a sign of confession.
