Lord's Supper Participation

[blhowes]

Hypothetical Situation:
A person is scheduled to be baptized on the 2nd week of the month. The church has their monthly Lord's Supper on the 1st week of the month. Should the person be allowed to partake in the Lord's Supper before they're baptized? Why/Why Not?

 

[Bald_Brother]

Hypothetical Situation:
A person is scheduled to be baptized on the 2nd week of the month. The church has their monthly Lord's Supper on the 1st week of the month. Should the person be allowed to partake in the Lord's Supper before they're baptized? Why/Why Not?

Other, with question. Why the at least two weeks wait for the baptism?

Assuming the person has been approved by whatever body your church uses to approve, why the wait?

 

[Rich Koster]

I would say yes. I am assuming the person has made a believable profession and is walking orderly and the only reason they are not baptized is the schedule of the ones doing the baptism which they are subject to.

 

[blhowes]

Other, with question. Why the at least two weeks wait for the baptism?

Assuming the person has been approved by whatever body your church uses to approve, why the wait?

Ray, I hadn't thought about that. Its purely hypothetical, so let's say (hypothetically) that its a baptist church and the baptismal sprung a leak and can't be fixed 'til the 2nd Sunday.

 

[Jake]

At my church I made a profession of faith in front of the congregation, took communion the next week, and was baptized the week after that if I recall correctly. We do communion irregularly and baptism monthly.

 

[historyb]

I voted no, as long as the person made a public profession then they should be okay.

 

[INsearch]

I say maybe because I'm not sure why someone shouldn't take communion just because they haven't been baptized. I think communion should be taken by those who trust Jesus as savior. Baptism in my eyes shouldn't be a decider on whether someone can take communion.

 

[toddpedlar]

This is a question that will largely split along the line of one's view of covenant theology. If one's view is more one of continuation, in which Passover prefigures the Lord's Supper and circumcision prefigures baptism, then one is likely to say NO; if one's view is more in terms of discontinuity, then I think the two sacraments (which would in such a case more likely be called ordinances) would be viewed as separate.

From my perspective (the former) I think it inappropriate for one who is unbaptized to partake of the Lord's Supper, since it is the meal of God's visibly covenanted people, and one who is unbaptized does not have that sign and seal applied. Baptism is a sign of inclusion and initiation - the Lord's Supper is the day-to-day sacrament for regular nourishment. Circumcision and Passover played a similar role in the earlier administration of the Covenant of Grace. In the circumstance you suggested, the person should just wait until they've been properly initiated.

 

[INsearch]

From my perspective (the former) I think it inappropriate for one who is unbaptized to partake of the Lord's Supper, since it is the meal of God's visibly covenanted people, and one who is unbaptized does not have that sign and seal applied. Baptism is a sign of inclusion and initiation - the Lord's Supper is the day-to-day sacrament for regular nourishment. Circumcision and Passover played a similar role in the earlier administration of the Covenant of Grace. In the circumstance you suggested, the person should just wait until they've been properly initiated.

Very interesting (I have never read on covenant theology) your post makes a good deal of sense, but does this mean you aren't...oh for a really bad lack of terms...doesn't this kinda say that Baptism is a completion of sorts in regards to salvation? or grace or something? but again, thanks for laying out your answer like that.

 

[jambo]

I think we are falling into legalism. It would seem to me the soon-to-be-baptised person is walking closer to the Lord (and should not be prevented from taking the bread and the wine) than many other baptised members of churches participating in communion who quite frankly should not be. Their hearts may have grown cold, hard or distant and they have no desire to rectify this yet still participate in communion. I know it is the duty of the one leading communion to fence the table but the reality is a number of people still participate regardless.

I know none of us are worthy to take communion but we have been invited to do so. I also know we all have our sins and inconsistancies but this is a big difference to those who are not much more than "Sunday Christians."

 

[Brian Withnell]

A person has not taken vows of membership prior to baptism, and so is not a member of the visible church if they have not been baptized (and the LS is for the church only).

Now the problem I have with the scenario is that the 1st service should be reordered so that it all happens at once (vows, baptism, then communion). I have seen this several times at my own church.

 

[toddpedlar]

From my perspective (the former) I think it inappropriate for one who is unbaptized to partake of the Lord's Supper, since it is the meal of God's visibly covenanted people, and one who is unbaptized does not have that sign and seal applied. Baptism is a sign of inclusion and initiation - the Lord's Supper is the day-to-day sacrament for regular nourishment. Circumcision and Passover played a similar role in the earlier administration of the Covenant of Grace. In the circumstance you suggested, the person should just wait until they've been properly initiated.

Very interesting (I have never read on covenant theology) your post makes a good deal of sense, but does this mean you aren't...oh for a really bad lack of terms...doesn't this kinda say that Baptism is a completion of sorts in regards to salvation? or grace or something? but again, thanks for laying out your answer like that.

No, it's not a completion.... it's a sign, a mark, and a seal of the promise. In the case we're talking about, this is a professing convert, which by and large would be treated the same whether you're discussing a credo- or paedo-baptist congregation. This person is outside the covenant people of God, and wishes to profess his faith and make entrance to the church family. Hence, he desires to be baptized.

Now, he can't be baptized before the Lord's Supper is administered... I don't really understand the rush to take the Lord's Supper this month rather than wait and be baptized, professing faith publicly in that baptism, first.

I can recall as a kid growing up in a baptist church taking communion for years and never being baptized in that church (at age 13, we changed churches to a Lutheran church, and I was baptized then when our family joined it). In retrospect, as I came into reformed convictions after college, my practice in that baptist church seemed very inconsistent (but then the baptist church was nowhere near a covenantal view of the sacraments or church membership).

 

[toddpedlar]

A person has not taken vows of membership prior to baptism, and so is not a member of the visible church if they have not been baptized (and the LS is for the church only).

Now the problem I have with the scenario is that the 1st service should be reordered so that it all happens at once (vows, baptism, then communion). I have seen this several times at my own church.

Right - that makes MUCH more sense. (and I can't understand why it doesn't happen this way in baptist churches)

 

[INsearch]

Thanks that cleared stuff up for me.

 

[toddpedlar]

I think we are falling into legalism.

Does "legalism" occur any time that there is an expectation of orderliness and ecclesiastical practice that has some boundaries to be respected? Was it legalism in the Old Testament for circumcision to be required for any who wished to partake of the Passover?

It seems to me that this "closeness to the Lord" criterion that you want to apply to have people outside the visible church taking Communion could be used to justify fornication between two who "really love each other" but can't get married until next month. If they're "really committed to each other", and closer to each other than many married couples you know, isn't it legalistic to expect them to wait to be married before they have intimate relations?

 

[historyb]

It seems the question becomes What constitutes the visible Church? A building or Christians. Maybe I am seeing it wrong, I don't have a real high view of the sacraments sine I left the RCC. Though I am learning more

 

[Peairtach]

blhowes

Hypothetical Situation:
A person is scheduled to be baptized on the 2nd week of the month. The church has their monthly Lord's Supper on the 1st week of the month. Should the person be allowed to partake in the Lord's Supper before they're baptized? Why/Why Not?

Are these hypotheticals meant to tickle and test and tease our theological fancy?

Re the Q.

No.

It's not the proper biblical order.

It will teach them that the Lord's Supper isn't so central that they can't wait for it for a few weeks, and it will teach them to do things in the biblical order, instead of doing it our way.

I think to do it the other way because it feels good or because we don't want to be square and rather let it all hang out would just show the subliminal effect of '60s culture on the church and all of us.

 

[OPC'n]

no

 

[jambo]

I think we are falling into legalism.

Does "legalism" occur any time that there is an expectation of orderliness and ecclesiastical practice that has some boundaries to be respected? Was it legalism in the Old Testament for circumcision to be required for any who wished to partake of the Passover?

It seems to me that this "closeness to the Lord" criterion that you want to apply to have people outside the visible church taking Communion could be used to justify fornication between two who "really love each other" but can't get married until next month. If they're "really committed to each other", and closer to each other than many married couples you know, isn't it legalistic to expect them to wait to be married before they have intimate relations?

I knew when I wrote the post someone was going to say something like this!

1. Legalism
The OT is very much about the right practice. Circumcision, sacrifices, sabbath observance, the feasts etc. However "to obey is better than sacrifice" and the right practice was meant to be done in the right spirit. The Jews were diligent in observing the letter of the law and it was not long before this lead to abuse. This is seen in the religious leaders of Jesus' day. The spirit of the law is more important, however I realise that this too can also lead to abuse when it is taken too far.

What is more important-the letter of the law or the spirit of the law? If we say the letter then we are in danger of legalism. If we say the spirit the we are in danger of antinomianism. So we keep these things in balance and to me legalism is when keeping the letter of the law is out of balance with the spirit of the law.

2. "Closeness to the Lord"
It is obedience to God's command and an example of holy living and not legalism to expect an engaged couple to wait until they are married before engaging in sexual activity. I think the biblical standards on sexual activity are quite clear.

I know the couple may say they are truly committed to each other and deeply love each other more so than many married couples but they are antinomian in their thinking. This is the sort of person who would say we are under grace not law. It is an entirely different scenario to the question on communion the thread is dealing with. hypothetical case the thread is concerned with.

The point I was making is that the person wants to take communion, their heart is probably true (but only they themselves know), whereas in the same church there are probably people taking communion who really need to be examining their own lives and refraining from participation.

Also the policy of the church is to take communion monthly, had the person gone to another church which celebrates communion weekly then the problem would not arise. Could the church celebrating communion monthly justify this policy from scripture? Sola Scriptura is a cherished belief but the frequency a church celebrates communion is down to church policy.

 

[blhowes]

Are these hypotheticals meant to tickle and test and tease our theological fancy?

No.

Re the Q.

No.

It's not the proper biblical order.

Why not?

I think to do it the other way because it feels good or because we don't want to be square and rather let it all hang out would just show the subliminal effect of '60s culture on the church and all of us.

I'm at a loss how to respond. Why did you assume those were the motives?

 

[Bald_Brother]

What kind of churches are these???!!!

A person has not taken vows of membership prior to baptism, and so is not a member of the visible church if they have not been baptized (and the LS is for the church only).

Now the problem I have with the scenario is that the 1st service should be reordered so that it all happens at once (vows, baptism, then communion). I have seen this several times at my own church.

Right - that makes MUCH more sense. (and I can't understand why it doesn't happen this way in baptist churches)

If the hypothetical is true for a Baptist Church and it was true for the Baptist Church you attended, well, I don't even understand what is going on in those churches. The fact that it's even an issue is sad, in my opinion.

I'm a member of a Baptist Church (LBCF) and I was a member of the SBC before. Never have I seen anyone wait to be baptized after being approved and making a confession of their faith. Seriously. Never.

The next time the congregation met, the confessor was baptized. The baptisms always happened before the Lord's Supper.

-----Added 9/7/2009 at 04:35:38 EST-----

Other, with question. Why the at least two weeks wait for the baptism?

Assuming the person has been approved by whatever body your church uses to approve, why the wait?

Ray, I hadn't thought about that. Its purely hypothetical, so let's say (hypothetically) that its a baptist church and the baptismal sprung a leak and can't be fixed 'til the 2nd Sunday.

Get some water. Is this also somewhere in the desert? Is water not available?

Baptism isn't just some ho-hum event that should ever be put off "because... well... it just ain't convenient to do this week."

I mean, it was commanded by the very God we profess and the confessor is confessing, right?

 

[blhowes]

Get some water. Is this also somewhere in the desert? Is water not available?

Baptism isn't just some ho-hum event that should ever be put off "because... well... it just ain't convenient to do this week."

I mean, it was commanded by the very God we profess and the confessor is confessing, right?

Thank-you for bringing up the importance of baptism.

 

[Peairtach]

Dear B.L.Howes,

This is my reply from the other related thread

Baptism is the sign of entrance into the covenant, whereas the Lord's Table is the sign of continuance in the covenant/covenant renewal.

You can't continue in the covenant/covenantally renew your vows, without entering the covenant.

Baptism signifies regeneration/washing in the blood of Christ applied by the Spirit/baptism in the Spirit. The Lord's Table signifies eating and drinking of Christ's body and blood by faith.

You can't do the latter, without the former having happened to you first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Tallach
Are these hypotheticals meant to tickle and test and tease our theological fancy?

No.

Just a bit of fun. It's not just you that comes up with these hypotheticals. They do expand the ecclesiastitical and theological mind; a bit like the Queen of Sheba testing Solomon's wisdom.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Tallach
I think to do it the other way because it feels good or because we don't want to be square and rather let it all hang out would just show the subliminal effect of '60s culture on the church and all of us.

I'm at a loss how to respond. Why did you assume those were the motives?

Partly tongue-in-cheek. It would be good to ask how we are all influenced by hippy values. I don't necessarily say you are. I certainly believe I am. Sometimes "doing things by the book" or "following the rules" is pitted against "doing what feels good" in our post '60s generation, usually to the detriment of best practice or even, sometimes, morality.

 

[Bald_Brother]

Get some water. Is this also somewhere in the desert? Is water not available?

Baptism isn't just some ho-hum event that should ever be put off "because... well... it just ain't convenient to do this week."

I mean, it was commanded by the very God we profess and the confessor is confessing, right?

Thank-you for bringing up the importance of baptism.

No problem.

Please don't assume that I was directing that comment at you, it was more to the hypothetical... which by the way is something I have seen before. The church my wife grew up in has "Baptism Sundays" once a quarter. To them, it's sort of a follow up to the "making a decision" during the "altar call." And no, it wasn't a Baptist church.

 

[Romans922]

I think we are falling into legalism.

Does "legalism" occur any time that there is an expectation of orderliness and ecclesiastical practice that has some boundaries to be respected? Was it legalism in the Old Testament for circumcision to be required for any who wished to partake of the Passover?

It seems to me that this "closeness to the Lord" criterion that you want to apply to have people outside the visible church taking Communion could be used to justify fornication between two who "really love each other" but can't get married until next month. If they're "really committed to each other", and closer to each other than many married couples you know, isn't it legalistic to expect them to wait to be married before they have intimate relations?

I knew when I wrote the post someone was going to say something like this!

1. Legalism
The OT is very much about the right practice. Circumcision, sacrifices, sabbath observance, the feasts etc. However "to obey is better than sacrifice" and the right practice was meant to be done in the right spirit. The Jews were diligent in observing the letter of the law and it was not long before this lead to abuse. This is seen in the religious leaders of Jesus' day. The spirit of the law is more important, however I realise that this too can also lead to abuse when it is taken too far.

What is more important-the letter of the law or the spirit of the law? If we say the letter then we are in danger of legalism. If we say the spirit the we are in danger of antinomianism. So we keep these things in balance and to me legalism is when keeping the letter of the law is out of balance with the spirit of the law.

People we are talking about the worship of the Lord, so two things we must follow, we must worship in SPIRIT (with our hearts) and TRUTH (according to God's Word). I can't know the heart (so I can't quibble about that concerning this question), but I do know the truth. Let's look at it, and since some people on here are having dispensational tendencies, let's look at the New Testament, Acts 2.

This is exactly what we are to do.

"Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.39"For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." 40And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation!" 41So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. 42They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer."

It was only after baptism that they were devoting themselves to the apostle's teaching, fellowship, the Lord's Supper, and prayer.

So this cannot be a question of legalism whatsoever. God's Word is clear. Legalism is adding to or taking away from the Word of God. Here it seems, NO is the proper response.

 

[Scottish Lass]

This is not likely to be the only time the person will have the opportunity to take the Lord's Supper. Baptism and membership should ordinarily precede the Lord's Supper. I might be open to odd, rare, circumstances that could prevent baptism but not the Lord's Supper (a deathbed conversion where water is dangerous, but the elements are not?)

 

[Mushroom]

Obedience to the directives and commandments given us in scripture is not legalism, it is a byproduct of our love for our Redeemer. It becomes legalism when our odecience becomes the basis for our justification rather than Christ's.

The concept that adhering to biblical process is somehow legalism is derived from an existentialist bent - the rejection of what may be construed as 'old guard' or 'herd' mentality in favor of one whose main impetus is 'passion'. Its hard to spot that in our own thinking because our culture is drowning in it. Those whose "heart is probably true" should have no problem waiting to receive the sacraments in the proper order. If it chafes them, it may be a good idea for them to 'examine themselves' prior to either sacrament.

 

[Theoretical]

No, and for that reason, being infant baptized, I would not take communion at a Baptist church, unless they officially held to a Bunyan-type view.

It's not because I don't believe my Baptist brethren aren't brethren, it's out of respect for their belief that I am not baptized and as such should not participate in the Lord's Supper with them.

 

[ericknowsChrist]

But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
- 1 Corinthians 11:28

Where is the verse that says I am supposed to examine you and decide if you can partake in communion?

I am to examine myself, and likewise you - yourself.

If an individual is in wanton sin and under formal discipline then we have a different discussion.