Lord's Supper and Baptism.

[Ukulelemike]

On 2/19/2017 at 6:54 PM, DaveW said:

Things to consider certainly, but the important point as to them in my mind is not "What church baptised them" - it is the authority under which they were baptised.

In both of these instances, Peter and Philip were appointed officers of the church at Jerusalem, and therefore were serving under that authority.

But were they baptised "INTO" the church at Jerusalem? That is far less clear.

I think that is what you are pointing to.

There are many who would say without hesitation that these both were added to the membership of the church at Jerusalem.

I would say that there is no question that they were baptised by authorised agents of the church at Jerusalem, but were they made members of the church at Jerusalem?

Far less clear.

As far as Cornelius is concerned they were worshipping the Lord together in an organised way, but none of them was baptised.

I think that we can see from Acts 2:41 that there is an order - salvation, then baptism, then church membership.

These at Joppa Ceasarea were saved, but not baptised, therefore they could not have been a full and proper church.

But once baptised, there was nothing lacking for them to be a full and proper church. My(Hastily formed at this stage) opinion is that these were baptised under the authority of the Jerusalem church, into the newly formed Joppa Ceasarea church.

The Ethiopian is far more complex. The proper authority was there certainly, we see salvation in Acts 8:37 (Notably, in the KJV, but not in many modern versions), then we see baptism, but there is no comment or information on church membership.

I "lean towards" the position that baptism is prior to church membership, but not the actual mechanism to church membership.

This means then that baptism is done under the authority of a local church, but is not done for "church members".

This could be the difference between these two "church ordinances" - Lord's supper is done with church members in mind and there is clear example (although no as clear on particular teaching) of it being restricted; baptism is done under the authority of a local church, but is actually done to people who are not members.

I think I can live with that (although it will take more study to refine this).

Church ordinances both - performed under the authority of a local church.

The "application" of each ordinance is different, the Lord's Supper by example restricted to church members, Baptism by necessity restricted non-church members. (Because baptism comes before membership.)

Thanks Happy - your questions directed my thoughts to a solution that I am happy to consider further.

 

Of course the discussion can continue, but at this point I will probably bow out from participation, and simply watch and learn.

In the meantime, I now have some things to look further into on my own with this.

 

Thanks folks for a good natured and profitable discussion.

So in the case of the Lord's Supper, we are still at somewhat of an impasse, as there is no clear teaching on closed/close/open, correct? Myself, I have held to close, those confessing salvation in Christ, though not necessarily members of our local assembly. I also hold that each church is responsible to answer this for themselves between them and the Lord, and would not seek to make my position become theirs.

On 2/19/2017 at 6:54 PM, DaveW said:

Things to consider certainly, but the important point as to them in my mind is not "What church baptised them" - it is the authority under which they were baptised.

In both of these instances, Peter and Philip were appointed officers of the church at Jerusalem, and therefore were serving under that authority.

But were they baptised "INTO" the church at Jerusalem? That is far less clear.

I think that is what you are pointing to.

There are many who would say without hesitation that these both were added to the membership of the church at Jerusalem.

I would say that there is no question that they were baptised by authorised agents of the church at Jerusalem, but were they made members of the church at Jerusalem?

Far less clear.

As far as Cornelius is concerned they were worshipping the Lord together in an organised way, but none of them was baptised.

I think that we can see from Acts 2:41 that there is an order - salvation, then baptism, then church membership.

These at Joppa Ceasarea were saved, but not baptised, therefore they could not have been a full and proper church.

But once baptised, there was nothing lacking for them to be a full and proper church. My(Hastily formed at this stage) opinion is that these were baptised under the authority of the Jerusalem church, into the newly formed Joppa Ceasarea church.

The Ethiopian is far more complex. The proper authority was there certainly, we see salvation in Acts 8:37 (Notably, in the KJV, but not in many modern versions), then we see baptism, but there is no comment or information on church membership.

I "lean towards" the position that baptism is prior to church membership, but not the actual mechanism to church membership.

This means then that baptism is done under the authority of a local church, but is not done for "church members".

This could be the difference between these two "church ordinances" - Lord's supper is done with church members in mind and there is clear example (although no as clear on particular teaching) of it being restricted; baptism is done under the authority of a local church, but is actually done to people who are not members.

I think I can live with that (although it will take more study to refine this).

Church ordinances both - performed under the authority of a local church.

The "application" of each ordinance is different, the Lord's Supper by example restricted to church members, Baptism by necessity restricted non-church members. (Because baptism comes before membership.)

Thanks Happy - your questions directed my thoughts to a solution that I am happy to consider further.

 

Of course the discussion can continue, but at this point I will probably bow out from participation, and simply watch and learn.

In the meantime, I now have some things to look further into on my own with this.

 

Thanks folks for a good natured and profitable discussion.

So in the case of the Lord's Supper, we are still at somewhat of an impasse, as there is no clear teaching on closed/close/open, correct? Myself, I have held to close, those confessing salvation in Christ, though not necessarily members of our local assembly. I also hold that each church is responsible to answer this for themselves between them and the Lord, and would not seek to make my position become theirs.

[DaveW]

6 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

So in the case of the Lord's Supper, we are still at somewhat of an impasse, as there is no clear teaching on closed/close/open, correct? Myself, I have held to close, those confessing salvation in Christ, though not necessarily members of our local assembly. I also hold that each church is responsible to answer this for themselves between them and the Lord, and would not seek to make my position become theirs.

So in the case of the Lord's Supper, we are still at somewhat of an impasse, as there is no clear teaching on closed/close/open, correct? Myself, I have held to close, those confessing salvation in Christ, though not necessarily members of our local assembly. I also hold that each church is responsible to answer this for themselves between them and the Lord, and would not seek to make my position become theirs.

Whilst I also am happy for this to be a point of difference (to an extent), and whilst I have not yet found distinct teaching on this point, it cannot be denied that the synoptic Gospels all include the specific restriction of "the twelve" particularly noted as only those present.

The example set by the Lord Himself was to include only those who could be positively identified as being of the church that He was leading around at that time.

[1611mac]

I'm just thinking out loud here and I've not pondered this aspect much before.  Not what Baptism is and what it pictures, but this aspect of re-baptism for different churches...  so be gentle! No darts please...

Could it be that baptism is a "church" ordinance in respect that the (local) church teaches the truth of Baptism, administers Biblical baptism, shares the joy of Baptism, joins in with the believer in his identification with Christ, but....   the "relational" part of Baptism is strictly between the believer and Christ.  As to the church and world as "witnesses" of the believers outward public sign of his identification with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection  (Rom 6) and as to Christ as Saviour and his having all power over sin and death.

If a Baptism was administered under the correct Biblical instructions and guidelines I don't see any Biblical reason why a baptized believer should be re-baptized because of some differences in going from local church to local church.  Baptism is a picture of what has happened in a believers life and his new relationship with Christ.  That relationship does not change in going from, say, a "closed communion" church to a "close communion" church, or a church that practices Faith Promise and one that doesnt.

Edited February 21, 2017 by 1611mac

[Orval]

15 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

Thanks, you've put a lot of effort into your reply, it is appreciated. I may not have been clear with my request for clarification. So, what I'm really saying is this particular scripture Matthew 3:15 is all about Jesus and really little to do with the act of Baptizing. I'm not denying that baptism is an act of obedience and an outward show of identification with my Lord Jesus Christ. All I'm saying is using this scripture as a requirement for 'believer's baptism' is not a proper rendering of the scripture. I understand these scriptures Matthew 3:11-17 to be a similar event to Lazarus death, in John 11:4 particularly "that the Son of God might be glorified thereby." If I may speak plainly, this is not for the promotion of Baptizing but for the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ and the fulfillment of God's word. I'm  just giving my opinion and not promoting a doctrine.

I corrected my original post by strike through of Esaias and inserting Elijah, call it a prophetical slip :) .

 

1 Timothy,

 

While you are correct, that Jesus sought to bring glory to God and that Matthew 3:15 is not promoting baptism, I would not agree that you can divorce the verse from the context of the passage.   The complete topic is about baptism and Jesus’s participation in this ritual to which would become an ordinance.  The fact is that Jesus is coming to John for baptism to make public his entrance into ministry under the auspices of John’s baptism.  His public showing and approval of God came because he submitted himself to baptism. 

 

If we remove the example and meaning of baptism from this passage we can no longer interpret it correctly.  I also want you to see in this verse that Jesus said to John “it becometh us”, clearly meaning that John was doing right by baptizing and that Jesus was doing right by being baptized.  That God spoke and the Holy Spirit appeared was a public proclamation that God was pleased with the baptism and the entrance into Christ’s Messiah ministry. 

 

I can agree with your “not promoting baptism” but I cannot agree with removing baptism from the context of the passage.   

 

Once again 1 Tim, I appreciate the challenge and the question and trust we can disagree here as brothers in Christ.

 

        

[Ukulelemike]

12 hours ago, DaveW said:

Whilst I also am happy for this to be a point of difference (to an extent), and whilst I have not yet found distinct teaching on this point, it cannot be denied that the synoptic Gospels all include the specific restriction of "the twelve" particularly noted as only those present.

The example set by the Lord Himself was to include only those who could be positively identified as being of the church that He was leading around at that time.

With all due respect, I find I must disagree, not on the facts you state, as to who was present at the Last Supper and institution of the Lord's Supper, but as to your conclusion.

I believe the reason only the twelve were included, (despite the fact that after His resurrection and ascensions, there were 120 who gathered in the upper room to await the power of the Holy Ghost to fall on them), is because they were clearly the leadership of the Church of Jerusalem, and as such, were given the instructions on adminstering the 'ordinance", (for so we have chosen to call it for the discussion.) 120 gathered, and they were clearly saved since it seems the power came upon them all, or at least contextually it seems to be the case. And from that 120, the Apostles chose Judas' replacement (another discussion for another thread, as to his validity), so there were others clearly who had followed jesus closely for His entire ministry.

But, do I declare this as absolute? not at all, just how I see the situation: Jesus chose to establish the Lord's Supper to those 12 (11 ultimately) that He called Apostles, setting them apart in authority from the rest of His disciples.

[1Timothy115]

8 hours ago, Orval said:

 

1 Timothy,

 

While you are correct, that Jesus sought to bring glory to God and that Matthew 3:15 is not promoting baptism, I would not agree that you can divorce the verse from the context of the passage.   

 

I can agree with your “not promoting baptism” but I cannot agree with removing baptism from the context of the passage.   

 

Once again 1 Tim, I appreciate the challenge and the question and trust we can disagree here as brothers in Christ.

 

        

Fair enough. I agree with the majority of what you've posted. We can disagree about what the passages in Matthew 3 mean to convey and still be very good friends and brothers in the Lord Jesus Christ. I appreciate your devotion to the word of God. See you around and I’m sure we’ll have plenty of agreement and possibly some disagreement from time to time. If I have not welcomed you to the board yet…a hardy welcome aboard.

[HappyChristian]

5 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

With all due respect, I find I must disagree, not on the facts you state, as to who was present at the Last Supper and institution of the Lord's Supper, but as to your conclusion.

I believe the reason only the twelve were included, (despite the fact that after His resurrection and ascensions, there were 120 who gathered in the upper room to await the power of the Holy Ghost to fall on them), is because they were clearly the leadership of the Church of Jerusalem, and as such, were given the instructions on adminstering the 'ordinance", (for so we have chosen to call it for the discussion.) 120 gathered, and they were clearly saved since it seems the power came upon them all, or at least contextually it seems to be the case. And from that 120, the Apostles chose Judas' replacement (another discussion for another thread, as to his validity), so there were others clearly who had followed jesus closely for His entire ministry.

But, do I declare this as absolute? not at all, just how I see the situation: Jesus chose to establish the Lord's Supper to those 12 (11 ultimately) that He called Apostles, setting them apart in authority from the rest of His disciples.

Interesting thought to consider.

[Orval]

Closed communion.

 

Wow! I love talking about the practical application of the word of God within the structure of the New Testament church.  Truly iron sharpening iron. 

 

I believe the bible does teach a closed communion ie open only to a specific community of believers.  In reading the discussions on this topic the thought arises that in recent years (last 200) the effect of a more global world and the ability to move from city to city quickly has played an important role in the acceptance of open communion. 

 

Our forefathers, on the other hand had to contend with things we do not contend with today except those believers in Muslim lands.

 

Consider the path taken to introduce open communion beginning in the late 1700’s and moving forward.

 

The revival of Catholicism and the idea that baptism and communion were a means of imparting grace to the believer. This became a major controversy among Baptist’s in the mid 1800’s the idea had become verbally volatile, there are a few books still found from that period where in Baptists defend their stand on closed communion and baptism by emersion sans any efficacy in the act for believers.  Keep in mind also that in the 1700’s nearly every church (except Catholic) practiced closed communion including Lutheran, Methodist, protestant Baptists and historical Baptists. 

 

The controversy over closed and open communion is a recent controversy (historically) in relation to the spreading of Catholicism and the fact that the centrality of the local New Testament Baptist church and its community of believers is no longer the primary place of social activity. 

 

Secondly, persecution against Baptist and our doctrines of baptism and communion began to fade out by the mid to late 1700’s.  Our forefathers were referred to as dissenters and in many areas of north east they were imprisoned, lost their land, had their property put up for sale, beaten, run out of counties and cities and forced to pay legal tithes to ungodly protestant and church of England clergy.  Many do not know of the persecution that our forefathers endured in early America.  For this reason, our Baptist churches protected themselves by sticking to the doctrines of baptism by emersion upon public profession of faith and they held to closed communion because they could not vouch for the character of any visitor and they believed the scriptures taught closed communion.

 

Thirdly, the acceptance of universal church (Catholic) doctrine by protestant Baptists has muddied the waters of closed communion.  The argument is based on the acceptance of a universal church body therefore making everyone who is saved part of the body.  If we are all members of the body, what protestants believe to be the one world church invisible, then open communion is to be accepted and not debated.  I do not know how many young IFB preachers accept open communion based on this principle but I suspect it is many.  While I stand against open communion I also believe in the autonomy of the local church and the liberty of the soul which means I would not break off fellowship with someone who does not hold to the same view I do.  Hebrews is clear the pastor will give an account of his flock and what he teaches. Hebrews 13:17 

 

Fourthly, in my mind the bible clearly teaches and gives forth the appearance of closed communion but not open judgement prior to communion.

 

1.   The ordinance is a memorial of Christ, a time of remembering what Christ has done in your life and in the lives of those in the church.  It is also a time to repair relationship breakdowns within the local body of believers prior to coming together in in communion with our Savior.  It would be nearly impossible for a visitor to share those memories of what Christ has done in the local NT church.

2.   I Corinthians 11:18 Paul clearly states that when you come together in “the church”, the local NT church at Corinth.  He was not speaking of all the churches he was speaking to a specific church. 1Corinthians 11:20 “when you come together therefor in one place” there is no “place” in this world that is big enough for all the believers to meet.  The meaning is clear when the local ecclesia gets together.    

  

3.   1 Corinthians 11:34 states that if a man is hungry let him eat at home before coming to the communion.  Eating and going to church indicates we are speaking of a local community of believers in a local NT church.  It is not like there were 4 or 5 Baptist churches in Corinth, there was only one church and only baptized members of that church could participate in the communion.  People who participated were known by the members of the church and had a testimony among those believers.

 

4.   1 Corinthians 11:33 “when ye come together, tarry for one another” how is one to tarry for someone else unless they are known to them?  The indication is that those who will participate are known by the other participants. 

 

5.   1 Corinthians11:28-31 is clear, we are not to judge another believer, the believer has a responsibility to look at their own life and ask if they have hidden sin and should they repent.  Communion is a time to draw closer to God and closer to one another.  In my mind this is another reason the communion is closed to all but the local NT church. 

 

 

Concerning the original post, the local NT church would not baptize a convert from another church?  A member from another church would not be allowed to vote in a church they were not a member of?  Therefore, why would a church allow a non-member to participate in a local church ordinance?  The idea that we accept a baptism from a church of like faith has nothing to do with whether we would accept someone from another church to share our communion.  If they are accepted into membership, then they can share the intimacy of our communion.  

 

I hope you understand what I am trying to say, the ordinance of Baptism brings one into membership, if we accept another churches baptism and transfer a membership then we are accepting their public testimony of salvation.  When we deny communion to a nonmember, we are saying communion is not for believers in general communion is for the local NT church members.

 

     

 

      

 

Edited February 24, 2017 by Orval
spelling