Baptism and Church Membership - A Gentleman's Debate

[John81]

John81,

Does your pastor include baptism as a pre-requisite?

He's never mentioned baptism with regards to the Lord's Supper.

[JJJ4given]

He's never mentioned baptism with regards to the Lord's Supper.

The scriptures gives the proper order:
Acts 2
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
41 (1st)Then they that gladly received his word
(2nd)were baptized: and the same day there were
(3rd)added unto them about three thousand souls.
42

[dwayner79]

Why would you think that "breaking of bread" is referring to the practice of the Lord's supper?

I think that may be an assumption (though I haven't really looked at it... which is why I am asking :ooops )

[HappyChristian]

Verse 46 continues the thought of breaking bread:

And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

Doesn't sound like communion to me, sounds more like fellowship...I have also heard that this is referring to breaking the bread of the Word?

[JerryNumbers]

I don't believe they were having dinner on the ground.

But, there are some that do not believe this was the lords Supper, but many who believe it was. But regardless, you will find that only baptized believers were invited to the Lords Table.

[HappyChristian]

I don't believe they were having dinner on the ground.

But, there are some that do not believe this was the lords Supper, but many who believe it was. But regardless, you will find that only baptized believers were invited to the Lords Table.

Jerry8 - no, I dont' think it's dinner on the ground, either. They are breaking bread from house to house in that verse. Would that be communion, or would it be more fellowship, around the Word of God?

And I agree, only baptized believers should partake of communion.

[JerryNumbers]

I being from the south and when we eat at church, we call it dinner on the ground, among a few other things. That was my way of saying they were not eating dinner, supper, nor breakfast, but observing the Lord's Supper.

[lettheredeemedsayso]

I have heard of closed communion before but I have never heard that you have to be baptized to participate in Lord's supper. That sounds like what a religion that believes you have to be baptized for salvation would teach.

1Cr 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

[Jerry]

Doesn't sound like communion to me' date=' sounds more like fellowship...I have also heard that this is referring to breaking the bread of the Word?[/quote']

Why would that part of the verse be symbolic or not literal when the rest is?

[Jerry]

The twelve were baptized before they had the Lord's Supper. In Acts 2 we see that is the same order. Are there other passages in Acts that show anything else?

[John the Baptist]

I realize this is not so IFB, but I know there are many here who at least know these men, and read their stuff. If we can keep the comment constructive that would be great.

Recently, Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology was revised (more of a retypeset). The one section that changed was on Baptism and Church Membership. This has sparked a very thoughtful back and forth between Mr. Grudem and Mr. John Piper (who incidently are very good friends).


Start with John Piper's comments on the change - the text of the change is listed.

Then read Wayne Grudem's reply.



If you are still with it, read Sam Storm's interesting article on how this effects the Lord's Supper.

A few points of interest:
1. I love how these men handle themselves.
2. While I agree with Grudem (basically), the last article fascinates me. If R.C. Sproul was in my church, I do not think I would tell him he can't take communion. Interesting thoughts though.
3. I love the fact that open discussions on theological topics are being had today over blogs. That's just cool. Its a good use for the Internet.

Act 2:41 "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." Clearly Baptism is a preresequisite for church membership. Notice they had already received the Word. Believers baptism.

God Bless
John

[lettheredeemedsayso]

What about someone that has been baptized 3 different times all in different baptist churches? Don't you think there is some tradition in this? I agree that a lost person should not take Lord's Supper but is the baptism that scripture refers to as a prerequiste for Lord's supper water or the Spirit's baptism?

[HappyChristian]

I honestly don't think it's symbolic! I do believe that the verse is referring to eating some type of food. But when it says they went from house to house, does it mean they were observing the Lord's Supper, or were they eating meals?

[dwayner79]

eating meals

[Jerry]

I agree that a lost person should not take Lord's Supper but is the baptism that scripture refers to as a prerequiste for Lord's supper water or the Spirit's baptism?

The passage quoted in Acts 2 is quite clearly referring to water baptism. Every believer is baptized by the Holy Spirit - so it would be moot point to indicate they must be baptized first before partaking of the Lord's Supper - the instant they got saved, they got baptized by the Holy Spirit.