See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Results 1 to 14 of 14

Worship discuss must be baptized to take the Lord's Supper? in the The Church forums; Our new worship service includes the stipulation that one must be baptized to partake in the Lord's Service. Some say that is against the scriptures. ...

  1. #1
    PCAdummy is offline. Puritanboard Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    14

    must be baptized to take the Lord's Supper?

    Our new worship service includes the stipulation that one must be baptized to partake in the Lord's Service.
    Some say that is against the scriptures.
    Some say that this is a work
    Some say that this negates Jesus's words "It is finished"
    Some say that this requirement contradicts Faith Alone.

    We didnt use to say this, but we did say something like you must be a member of a church in good standing.

    Thanks for any discussion.
    Last edited by PCAdummy; 02-14-2012 at 08:20 PM.

  2. #2
    Rufus's Avatar
    Rufus is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,381
    My church requires that one is baptized and a member of a church in good standing. Seeing as the Lord's supper is important, and all church members should have been previously baptized I see that one should be baptized.
    Sean
    Layman, First Presbyterian Church of Concord New Hampshire (PCA)
    Hillsborough, New Hampshire

  3. #3
    Peairtach's Avatar
    Peairtach is offline. Puritanboard Doctor
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    6,465
    You must be baptised in order to partake of the Lord's Supper. This is biblical church order.

    You also shouldn't be under church sanctions for flagrantly sinful behaviour when you paratake.

    You do not need to be baptised in order to be saved from your sins.
    Richard Tallach
    communicant member,
    Knox Free Church,
    Perth, Scotland GB

    His Name forever shall endure;
    last like the sun it shall:
    Men shall be blessed in Him,
    and blessed all nations shall Him call (Ps. 72:17)
    4 member(s) found this post helpful.

  4. #4
    Phil D. is offline. Puritanboard Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    865
    This requirement is part of the PCA Book of Church Order, which is part of its constitution. Thus it is binding on all PCA churches.

    Church Members

    6-1. The children of believers are, through the covenant and by right of
    birth, non-communing members of the church. Hence they are entitled to
    Baptism, and to the pastoral oversight, instruction and government of the
    church, with a view to their embracing Christ and thus possessing personally
    all benefits of the covenant.

    6-2. Communing members are those who have made a profession of faith
    in Christ, have been baptized, and have been admitted by the Session to the
    Lord's Table. (See BCO 46-4 for associate members).

    6-3. All baptized persons are entitled to the watchful care, instruction and
    government of the church, even though they are adults and have made no
    profession of their faith in Christ.

    6-4. Those only who have made a profession of faith in Christ, have been
    baptized, and admitted by the Session to the Lord's Table, are entitled to all
    the rights and privileges of the church. (See BCO 57-4 and 58-4)
    Phil Derksen
    attending Faith Community Church
    Kansas City, MO
    1 member(s) found this post helpful.

  5. #5
    Marrow Man's Avatar
    Marrow Man is offline. Drunk with Powder
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    11,853
    PCAdummy, welcome to the Puritan Board! Please fix your signature per Board rules (see the link in my signature below).

    Tim Phillips
    Pastor, Midlane Park Presbyterian Church (ARP)
    Louisville, KY
    Husband of Scottish Lass
    Father of Grace Cameron Phillips
    My Blog: Gairney Bridge
    My Facebook/My Avatar

    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

  6. #6
    Jack K's Avatar
    Jack K is offline. Puritanboard Graduate
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,671
    The Lord's Supper is not an individual observance, but rather a corporate one belonging to the church. That's the reason for the stipulation that a participant be part of a church (in some churches, part of that particular church). And all who belong to the church ought to have been baptized. Hence, you must be baptized to join in the Lord's Supper.

    I've seen non-Reformed Baptists who don't get it. In my experience, this is usually because the churches they grew up in (1) tended to treat baptism as an optional rite of passage that you may or may not decide to get around to, or (2) had little connection between baptism and church membership, with baptized persons not necessarily becoming members, or (3) saw the Lord's Supper as mostly a personal matter between the individual and God, with the church being little more than a convenient dispenser. Such people may have taken the Lord's Supper in the church they grew up in while never being baptized. Or they may have taken the Lord's Supper for years without ever considering church membership. Or they may have taken it in private gatherings without the church even being involved. Reformed churches, and Presbyterians in particular, don't tend to think that way.

    In any case, to take the Supper without being baptized is out of order. Baptism is an initiatory rite for the start of the Christian life. The Supper is a participatory rite for those who already belong.
    Jack K.
    PCA, worshiping with some fine Baptists in Colorado
    Gospel Teacher website
    Show Them Jesus: Teaching the Gospel to Kids
    1 member(s) found this post helpful.

  7. #7
    PCAdummy is offline. Puritanboard Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    14
    [QUOTE=Phil D.;929587] 6-2. Communing members are those who have made a profession of faith in Christ, have been baptized, and have been admitted by the Session to the Lord's Table. (See BCO 46-4 for associate members). )[/QUOTE

    I agree, but what about non members or visitors.
    Thanks,'
    Last edited by PCAdummy; 02-14-2012 at 08:21 PM. Reason: changed to non members of visitors
    L.L.
    PCA
    South East


    .

  8. #8
    Scottish Lass's Avatar
    Scottish Lass is offline. Puritanboard Doctor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    6,353
    [QUOTE=PCAdummy;929617]
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil D. View Post
    6-2. Communing members are those who have made a profession of faith in Christ, have been baptized, and have been admitted by the Session to the Lord's Table. (See BCO 46-4 for associate members). )[/QUOTE

    I agree, but what about non visitors.
    Thanks,'
    What do you mean by "non-visitors"? Do you people who regularly attend but aren't members?
    Anna
    Wife of Tim/Marrow Man
    Mother of Grace Cameron
    Louisville, KY
    Member of Midlane Park Presbyterian (Associate Reformed Presbyterian)


    He who does not hate the false does not love the true ~ Spurgeon

    Updates on Gracie: http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/gracephillips2010

  9. #9
    Edward's Avatar
    Edward is offline. Puritanboard Doctor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    6,888
    You need to look beyond Chapter 6 of the PCA BCO This is from 58-4:

    Communion of Saints, the minister, at the discretion of the Session, before
    the observance begins, may either invite all those who profess the true
    religion, and are communicants in good standing in any evangelical church,
    to participate in the ordinance; or may invite those who have been approved
    by the Session, after having given indication of their desire to participate. It
    is proper also to give a special invitation to non-communicants to remain
    during the service.

    If I understand the question then,

    Quote Originally Posted by PCAdummy View Post
    I agree, but what about non visitors.
    a regular attender who is not a church member should be excluded from the table.

    ---------- Post added at 01:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:14 AM ----------

    =====

    A couple of other comments:

    It is good when a new pastor seeks to move a church away from bad practices, but a well intentioned man who moves too quickly will likely suffer from what is referred to in the business community as a CLE - career limiting event. And I'd prefer to discuss such things in the abstract rather than where it could be taken as a comment on a situation that I know nothing about. I will say that my pastor has shown great discernment and discretion in implementing change.
    Edward
    Deacon
    PCA
    Texas

  10. #10
    Andres's Avatar
    Andres is offline. Puritanboard Doctor
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,498
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack K View Post
    And all who belong to the church ought to have been baptized. Hence, you must be baptized to join in the Lord's Supper.
    This was my first thought as well.
    Andrew Silva
    RE OPC (currently not serving)
    Dallas Reformed Presbyterian Church (RPCNA)
    North Dallas

    My blog - Lose Your Life
    Follow me - Twitter

    He is your friend who pushes you nearer to God. - Abraham Kuyper

  11. #11
    FenderPriest's Avatar
    FenderPriest is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,279
    For the Lord's supper, we warn non-Christians from partaking. There's the understanding as well that believer's baptism is required for membership - the "entry" grace, so to speak - and that members partake in the Lord's Supper - the "sustaining" grace, so to speak. Non-members are fine to partake with us, but they need to be Christians and we make that clear.

    Requiring baptism for partaking the Lord's Supper isn't against the Gospel because the Lord's Supper isn't a saving ordinance (therefor it doesn't trump faith alone), it isn't a sacrificial ordinance (therefore it doesn't trump Christ alone), it is an act of faith, and therefore it's not a works-righteousness/legalistic stipulation. It seems to me that the issue here is the need for pastoral teaching on this issue (whether present or not I can't tell from your posts). If people have questions, concerns, and comments about a change in church practice, the pastors need to lead by teaching.
    Jacob
    Sovereign Grace Ministries
    Pastoral Intern
    King of Grace Church
    Manchester, NH

    "Grace renews nature; glory perfects grace." ~ John Owen
    "Grace tried is better than grace, and more than grace. It is glory in its infancy." ~ John Flavel
    A Living Oak - Growing In Christ (blog)

  12. #12
    Marrow Man's Avatar
    Marrow Man is offline. Drunk with Powder
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    11,853
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward View Post
    It is good when a new pastor seeks to move a church away from bad practices, but a well intentioned man who moves too quickly will likely suffer from what is referred to in the business community as a CLE - career limiting event.
    Sound advice!
    Tim Phillips
    Pastor, Midlane Park Presbyterian Church (ARP)
    Louisville, KY
    Husband of Scottish Lass
    Father of Grace Cameron Phillips
    My Blog: Gairney Bridge
    My Facebook/My Avatar

    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

  13. #13
    Pilgrim's Avatar
    Pilgrim is offline. Puritanboard Doctor
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    8,729
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack K View Post
    The Lord's Supper is not an individual observance, but rather a corporate one belonging to the church. That's the reason for the stipulation that a participant be part of a church (in some churches, part of that particular church). And all who belong to the church ought to have been baptized. Hence, you must be baptized to join in the Lord's Supper.

    I've seen non-Reformed Baptists who don't get it. In my experience, this is usually because the churches they grew up in (1) tended to treat baptism as an optional rite of passage that you may or may not decide to get around to, or (2) had little connection between baptism and church membership, with baptized persons not necessarily becoming members, or (3) saw the Lord's Supper as mostly a personal matter between the individual and God, with the church being little more than a convenient dispenser. Such people may have taken the Lord's Supper in the church they grew up in while never being baptized. Or they may have taken the Lord's Supper for years without ever considering church membership. Or they may have taken it in private gatherings without the church even being involved. Reformed churches, and Presbyterians in particular, don't tend to think that way.

    In any case, to take the Supper without being baptized is out of order. Baptism is an initiatory rite for the start of the Christian life. The Supper is a participatory rite for those who already belong.
    There are plenty of self-styled "Reformed" Baptists today who don't get it either. WRT many Baptists in more recent times practicing what historically would have been termed open communion, I suspect the main factor was the influence of dispensational theology and its typical strong emphasis on the universal church coupled with what has often been a lack of emphasis on the local church. Before dispensationalism took hold, (along with broad evangelicalism and not wanting to appear sectarian or "legalistic") Baptists would have understood it quite well. Most of them practised close communion and barring all those who had not been immersed from the Lord's Table. At that time (mid-late 19th Century into the 20th) one of the burning issues, especially among Southern Baptists, was any acknowledgement of the universal or invisible church at all, whether formally or practically.

    Historic Baptist doctrine sees Baptism as the "door" of entrance into the visible church. Indeed, nearly every Baptist confession of note states that baptism (i.e. baptism by their definition--immersion) is prerequisite to the Lord's Supper and church membership. Interestingly the 1689 doesn't include this statement, (and the appendix IIRC states why they took no position on it) but I think most of the churches would have affirmed it.

    I grew up in the Methodist Church, which had an "open table." IIRC no mention of baptism was made. Whether or not this is historic Methodist doctrine going back to Wesley, Asbury etc. or the result of years of liberal influence, I can't say. I suspect it's the latter.

    ---------- Post added at 09:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:55 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Edward View Post
    You need to look beyond Chapter 6 of the PCA BCO This is from 58-4:

    Communion of Saints, the minister, at the discretion of the Session, before
    the observance begins, may either invite all those who profess the true
    religion, and are communicants in good standing in any evangelical church,
    to participate in the ordinance; or may invite those who have been approved
    by the Session, after having given indication of their desire to participate. It
    is proper also to give a special invitation to non-communicants to remain
    during the service.

    If I understand the question then,

    Quote Originally Posted by PCAdummy View Post
    I agree, but what about non visitors.
    a regular attender who is not a church member should be excluded from the table.

    ---------- Post added at 01:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:14 AM ----------

    =====

    A couple of other comments:

    It is good when a new pastor seeks to move a church away from bad practices, but a well intentioned man who moves too quickly will likely suffer from what is referred to in the business community as a CLE - career limiting event. And I'd prefer to discuss such things in the abstract rather than where it could be taken as a comment on a situation that I know nothing about. I will say that my pastor has shown great discernment and discretion in implementing change.
    The rub is that there are plenty of communicants in good standing in evangelical churches who are not baptized by any definition. In the Ev Free as well as some Bible churches, there is no requirement of baptism for church membership. They merely encourage it. Wayne Grudem as some may remember changed his views on baptism and church membership after the small controversy erupted over John Piper's attempt to get Bethlehem Baptist to accept other modes besides immersion. Grudem IIRC did some research and found that in churches with broad latitude on the issue (especially those that allow paedo or credo) like the Evangelical Free Church that eventually baptism was hardly emphasized at all.

    I totally agree with regard to "CLE's"!
    Chris
    Currently seeking a church--in transition
    One Pilgrims Progress |Twitter

    And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. Luke 19:13

  14. #14
    C. M. Sheffield's Avatar
    C. M. Sheffield is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,019
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Pilgrim View Post
    Indeed, nearly every Baptist confession of note states that baptism (i.e. baptism by their definition--immersion) is prerequisite to the Lord's Supper and church membership. Interestingly the 1689 doesn't include this statement, but I think most of the churches would have affirmed it.
    And interestingly enough the Baptist Faith & Message (2000) does include a statement on closed communion:

    VII. Baptism and the Lord's Supper

    Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72