Lord's Supper and Baptism.

[DaveW]

I have weighed up posting this and let me say that if it even looks like turning into a bunfight I will lock and probably delete the thread.

This is meant for discussion and thoughts.

I have had a few discussions over the last ...... let's say 12 months, about the association of these two items.

Now, to set some "assumptions" straight up - these are commonly known as the "two church ordinances" amongst IB churches.

Let me therefore make as assumption number 1 that "closed communion" is the norm - I know there is some discussion about that, but I wish to make this amongst those who hold to closed. Others may discuss, but this is the assumption. If you wish to argue about closed/close/open then please start another thread.

Assumption number 2 is that IB churches accept only baptism from churches of like faith and practice. For clarity, I don't know of any IB church that would accept Catholic baptism as legitimate, and I know that there is some variation in exactly what makes up "like faith and practice", but let's make it for the purposes here as only IB churches.

 

Now then, with these two assumptions as accepted (Closed Communion and IB baptism) I have had discussions with fellow IB's about a perceived inconsistency in the application of these two things.

Closed communion basically says that as it is a "church ordinance" only members of that particular church are invited to participate.

However, when a member moves from one area to another and changes his membership from one church to another, we as IB churches generally accept the baptism from another IB church as being legitimate for our church.

If baptism is a church ordinance, why is it not specific to that particular church?

Or if it is perceived that baptism from another church of like faith and practice is valid for a different church, then why is not the membership of another IB church good enough for the Lord's Table?

Either these things are both "local church ordinances" or they aren't.

I have had one person saying that if baptism is transferable in that way, why should we not apply the same to the Lord's Supper and be "close communion" rather than closed, and another gentleman (at a different time) arguing that as the Lord's Supper is specific to a particular church so also baptism should be, and therefore membership should be granted ONLY on baptism into that particular local church. (I know there are some churches that do this, but I don't think it is because of this issue in general - I think they just don't think anyone else is "good enough" for them.)

 

Now I personally am "closed communion" and baptism by "like faith and practice", but it seems to me that it is inconsistent to be thus.

I have not settled this for myself at this point, but I would like to open this for discussion.

May I state again that if anyone wishes to argue about "close/closed/open" or "acceptance of like faith and practice baptism" as individual issues, then please start a new thread. I understand that some discussion of these must happen to investigate the issues, but I think you all know what I mean by this.

 

So, is it inconsistent?

Are these genuinely "church ordinances" or should they actually be considered "Household of God" ordinances? (or one of each maybe?)

Is it just all too hard to seriously consider and we should leave it at the current status and not rock the boat?

 

 

 

[1611mac]

DaveW.. Very very interesting question. I can say that this "issue" has personally affected me.  It, in part, was cause for my leaving a very good church. This issue is real.  I don' have a Biblical answer to your question but I would love detailing my experience, perhaps a little later today.  My experience may cloud the issue even more and so I'll wait for some replies before I decide if appropriate to post the details.  

It's a good question and I hope some Biblical answers come forth. 

Edited February 18, 2017 by 1611mac

[...]

1 hour ago, DaveW said:

if it even looks like turning into a bunfight...

LOL!  Forgive me for laughing, but all I could picture is all of us, standing in a room, throwing tiny loaves of bread at each other.

Edited February 18, 2017 by Brother Stafford

[1611mac]

Would the buns be unleavened?

[1Timothy115]

I need to re-read the OP thoroughly and let it all sink in. I've encountered a person who cannot be immersed. I'll mark this thread for follow. Thanks...a very timely thread.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

Brother DaveW,

A few years ago, due to some questions raised in my mind through encounters with Baptist bride doctrine, I engaged in study concerning the two Biblical ordinances.  I believe that I have come to some solid Biblical conclusions; however, some of those conclusions are NOT necessarily the "traditional" viewpoint, and thus would NOT fall under your stated parameters.

[DaveW]

9 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother DaveW,

A few years ago, due to some questions raised in my mind through encounters with Baptist bride doctrine, I engaged in study concerning the two Biblical ordinances.  I believe that I have come to some solid Biblical conclusions; however, some of those conclusions are NOT necessarily the "traditional" viewpoint, and thus would NOT fall under your stated parameters.

If you would prefer, I would be happy to see it on PM - if you feel it would sidetrack things a bit?

I value your thoughts.

And note that I certainly do not consider myself a Baptist Brider.

[1611mac]

19 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother DaveW,

A few years ago, due to some questions raised in my mind through encounters with Baptist bride doctrine, I engaged in study concerning the two Biblical ordinances.  I believe that I have come to some solid Biblical conclusions; however, some of those conclusions are NOT necessarily the "traditional" viewpoint, and thus would NOT fall under your stated parameters.

Would love to here what you have to say... if not appropriate for this post please start a new thread. 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

22 minutes ago, DaveW said:

If you would prefer, I would be happy to see it on PM - if you feel it would sidetrack things a bit?

I value your thoughts.

And note that I certainly do not consider myself a Baptist Brider.

Brother Dave,

3.  To assure you -- I did NOT AT ALL believe that you held to a Baptist bride position.

2.  I thank you for the compliment in that you "value" my thoughts in the realm of Bible study.

1.  I do not necessarily think that my thoughts would "sidetrack" the thread; however, I do NOT wish to engage contrary to your parameters and permission.

13 minutes ago, 1611mac said:

Would love to here what you have to say... if not appropriate for this post please start a new thread. 

A beginning question to consider -- What BIBLICAL grounds do we have for calling each of the two ordinances "church ordinances"?  In many cases, our viewpoint concerning the practice of these two ordinances begins with this premise, and then proceeds with some logical progression from that premise.  Yet the above question challenges us to consider whether the premise itself has BIBLICAL substance.  (Note: In considering the question, I believe that we should separate our consideration of the two ordinances as individual elements, so as not to assume something for one ordinance on the grounds of the other ordinance.)  Indeed, I would challenge that we consider the ordinance of Biblical Baptism first. 

[DaveW]

I do allow for that in my original post of course - As I mentioned they are generally considered the two "Church ordinances" but should they be so considered?

 

2 hours ago, DaveW said:

Are these genuinely "church ordinances" or should they actually be considered "Household of God" ordinances? (or one of each maybe?)

If they can be considered separately then that would potentially allow us to resolve the "inconsistency".

I am happy for the discussion to go in that direction - I just didn't want there to be an argument about "alien baptism" and "closed/close/open" etc - let's leave those specific arguments for another time.

It really is the problem of naming them both "Church ordinances" and then treating them differently.

 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

17 minutes ago, DaveW said:

I do allow for that in my original post of course - As I mentioned they are generally considered the two "Church ordinances" but should they be so considered?

If they can be considered separately then that would potentially allow us to resolve the "inconsistency".

I am happy for the discussion to go in that direction - I just didn't want there to be an argument about "alien baptism" and "closed/close/open" etc - let's leave those specific arguments for another time.

It really is the problem of naming them both "Church ordinances" and then treating them differently.

So then, what are all of the New Testament "baptism" passages; and what do we learn from those actual passages concerning whether baptism is a "church" ordinance, or not?

Edited February 18, 2017 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Pastor Scott Markle]

21 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

So then, what are all of the New Testament "baptism" passages; and what do we learn from those actual passages concerning whether baptism is a "church" ordinance, or not?

As we look into the New Testament, the first doctrine and practice of Biblical baptism that we find is that which was administered by John the Baptist.  So then . . .

1.  Under what authority did John the Baptist administer his baptism; was John's baptism ordained by the Lord God?

2.  Was there any connection or unity between John the Baptist's baptism and our Lord Jesus' (along with His disciples) baptism?

[DaveW]

Well, of course not every reference to "baptism" is talking of water baptism - this has to be understood before any serious study of the matter can be undertaken.

(Without doing a comprehensive study at this time) The majority of relevant references in the Gospels would be in reference to John's baptism, which I would say in relation to the Disciples may be related to church membership, but that is not indicated for "the multitudes" that came to him in the Jordan for instance.

In Acts we see the 11, Philip, Peter, and Paul and Silas (Not sure which actually did it) baptising. Possibly Ananias also.

With the possible exception of Ananias (for whom we do not know his relevant status) the others were all appointed officers of churches - so it seems that baptism is done under the authority of a (local) church, but we see Peter for instance baptising a group of people who were not in Jerusalem and it seems never were in Jerusalem. Did he baptise them into the church at Joppa Ceasarea? was this the formation of that church?

So I think a case can be made for baptism to be done under the authority of a church, through an officer of a church, but because we see "missionaries" baptising people into churches other than his own home church, I wonder where that leads us? I think it is too much to insist that these in Acts 10 were baptised into the Jerusalem Church because they were baptised by Peter with Authority from that church. It is far easier to accept that they were baptised into the Joppa Ceasarea church under the authority of a missionary (Peter) from the Jerusalem church.

I do think that Acts 2:41 indicates baptism precedes membership of a (local) church, but that is not really what is in question for me. It is more about the transference of membership and what implications that has to baptism.

Note: I am thinking on the fly here, and so there may be implications to what I have posted that I have not considered. Please be gentle with me...

 

Note 2: I was just about to post this when Pastor Markle posted the above, so it makes no reference to his last post.

I have to get some sleep..... will check in again tomorrow.

(or maybe later "this morning"......)

Edited February 20, 2017 by DaveW

[Jim_Alaska]

3 hours ago, DaveW said:

I have weighed up posting this and let me say that if it even looks like turning into a bunfight I will lock and probably delete the thread.

This is meant for discussion and thoughts.

I have had a few discussions over the last ...... let's say 12 months, about the association of these two items.

Now, to set some "assumptions" straight up - these are commonly known as the "two church ordinances" amongst IB churches.

Let me therefore make as assumption number 1 that "closed communion" is the norm - I know there is some discussion about that, but I wish to make this amongst those who hold to closed. Others may discuss, but this is the assumption. If you wish to argue about closed/close/open then please start another thread.

Assumption number 2 is that IB churches accept only baptism from churches of like faith and practice. For clarity, I don't know of any IB church that would accept Catholic baptism as legitimate, and I know that there is some variation in exactly what makes up "like faith and practice", but let's make it for the purposes here as only IB churches.

 

Now then, with these two assumptions as accepted (Closed Communion and IB baptism) I have had discussions with fellow IB's about a perceived inconsistency in the application of these two things.

Closed communion basically says that as it is a "church ordinance" only members of that particular church are invited to participate.

However, when a member moves from one area to another and changes his membership from one church to another, we as IB churches generally accept the baptism from another IB church as being legitimate for our church.

If baptism is a church ordinance, why is it not specific to that particular church?

Or if it is perceived that baptism from another church of like faith and practice is valid for a different church, then why is not the membership of another IB church good enough for the Lord's Table?

Either these things are both "local church ordinances" or they aren't.

I have had one person saying that if baptism is transferable in that way, why should we not apply the same to the Lord's Supper and be "close communion" rather than closed, and another gentleman (at a different time) arguing that as the Lord's Supper is specific to a particular church so also baptism should be, and therefore membership should be granted ONLY on baptism into that particular local church. (I know there are some churches that do this, but I don't think it is because of this issue in general - I think they just don't think anyone else is "good enough" for them.)

 

Now I personally am "closed communion" and baptism by "like faith and practice", but it seems to me that it is inconsistent to be thus.

I have not settled this for myself at this point, but I would like to open this for discussion.

May I state again that if anyone wishes to argue about "close/closed/open" or "acceptance of like faith and practice baptism" as individual issues, then please start a new thread. I understand that some discussion of these must happen to investigate the issues, but I think you all know what I mean by this.

 

So, is it inconsistent?

Are these genuinely "church ordinances" or should they actually be considered "Household of God" ordinances? (or one of each maybe?)

Is it just all too hard to seriously consider and we should leave it at the current status and not rock the boat?

 

 

 

I also find myself in the position of having to first study the parameters you have laid out before trying to form any kind of biblical response. To be honest I have never considered the points you posted, nor have I ever heard this kind of question asked. Suffice to say that this will make for an interesting study that may take some time in order to respond precisely, within the parameters as asked.

[1611mac]

Does "Baptism" as it relates to church "membership" fit in this thread too? If not, I'll start a separate thread.  Just let me know.

ie: If you accept Christ as Saviour and then are immediately scripturally baptized are you AUTOMATICALLY a member of the baptizing church?  I've seen this practiced both ways. I also see issues with both. I see immediate and quick baptisms in the Bible, but some pastors like to see fruit before baptism and especially before membership.  What does the Bible teach?