What's your view of the relationship between baptism and communion?

Among most Presbyterians, there are 2 criteria: baptism and profession of faith. This is true both for those baptized as infants and for those converting as adults. The order changes, though.

I would think that most Baptists have the same two criteria.

“Believers who have not been baptized should not be permitted to partake”

How would a congregation enforce this? Is there some procedure to make sure such a person can’t get near the elements?

Beyond repeating the stern warning from 1 Cor 11:27-31, what biblical basis is there for physically interfering with someone who chooses to disregard?

I answered “Unbaptized believers should not partake but should not be prevented.” 1 Cor 11:28 seems to say that ultimately it should be up to the individual whether or not they partake.

I chose other because I’m not sure a believer should even have a chance to partake in communion w/o being baptized. I think we have added an extra buffer period between baptism and communion in some of our circles. I am thinking of Acts when a person comes into the church they are baptized.

I completely understand why we have the interview process and classes and other things, but I’m not sure that’s correct. I also understand the opposite dangers of baptizing everyone that comes through the door.

But the pattern does seem to be that when a person comes to Christ he gets baptized that day.

But this is definitely something I am toying with in my head. So what are your thoughts?

[Aaron Blumer]

Charlie, I’m not sure that most Baptist churches have two criteria (baptism and profession of faith) exactly, because many of us (most, I hope) would say that baptism is a profession of faith.

Aren’t people baptized upon making a credible profession of faith, sometimes quite a while afterwards? And, what about someone who was baptized as an infant, and professes belief in Christ as Savior, but hasn’t been “scripturally” baptized? I think cases like require a two-fold criteria. I mean, you have to allow for people professing their faith without baptism, or I don’t see how you can even baptize them. Or, you can’t recognize the salvation of non-Baptists. It gets weird.

I’m interested to know who picked baptizing babies as the answer, and how that solves the problem. Since people are always converting to Christianity, and they are probably not baptized right away upon their conversion, we must still judge how to deal with those people. I suppose paedobaptism does reduce the frequency of the issue.

Also, those who picked “should not be permitted,” how do you actually prevent those people from partaking? I find it hard to believe that there is an IFB church over 50 people that actually screens each individual before offering him or her communion. Or, did you really mean something along the lines of the second answer?

Charlie,

Based on Aaron’s response when I asked that question (thinking through the possible logistics), I concluded there really is no practical difference between the first two poll choices.

Even in the Roman Catholic Eucharist, which is supposedly closed, there is no enforcement.

There is a big gap between ‘permission’ and ‘enforcement’. I think a church can make their beliefs clear on who should/shouldn’t partake, but it is obviously going to be up to the individual as to whether they are honest or observant of their church’s standards. Also, it sends a different message to say “We do not permit this” even if you can’t enforce it, than to say “You shouldn’t do this but we won’t stop you”.

I see what you meant now. I recognized a difference between the first two choices, because a few Reformed churches still practice the old communion token system. Communion season is announced in advance. Sometime before that day, you have to meet with the elders and give a testimony of faith in Christ and good standing in the church. Normally, everything is fine, and you get your communion token, allowing you to participate. If you are a visitor, either there may be a time for you to give a quick testimony, or you just don’t get to participate.

In the Scottish tradition, the congregants walk up to a table to receive communion, so the elders/deacons/ushers examine the tokens as you approach. They will physically bar your access to the table if you don’t have a token.

I don’t see the purpose behind “we do not permit this.” Aside from the problem of enforcement, what is the biblical basis for it?

The operative verse is 1 Cor 11:28:

• But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup.

Present the teaching on who should and should not, then let each man examine himself, and so let him eat.

I don’t see any biblical authority in this case for saying, “we do not permit this.”

Dan, I think I am with you on this.

It seems the context of examining oneself has to do with them making it about themselves, not about the ‘proclaiming the Lord’s death till He returns.’ 17-22 is dealing with factions and eating the Lord’s supper, while 33 and 34 is telling people to not come hungry (for it is not about eating, but proclaiming and remembering) lest you come into judgment.

I think there is a tie between 29 and 33-34. 29 says, ‘anyone who drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.’ While 34 says, ‘wait for one another - if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home - so that when you come together it will not be for judgment.’

I have always had thoughts that limiting communion based upon baptism may be incorrect, but have never thought it through, so the above may very well be incorrect. They were just my first thoughts.

If you’re going to keep any semblance of the visible church, it has to be bounded by the sacraments. In fact, Calvin calls the two marks of the church the preaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments.

Those who are in the church take communion, not those outside. Baptism places one into the church. Communion is enjoyed within it. Remember, communion symbolizes the horizontal connection of the body as well as the vertical one. If someone who is not in the church takes communion, then it’s no longer the meal of the body of Christ. That has led many groups to practice closed communion, to protect that scope of the sacrament.

Offering communion to someone is recognizing them as a member of the church. You wouldn’t let someone join the church on the basis of his or her infant baptism, so why would you accord church membership to that person by offering communion?

In most of the early church, the eucharist was celebrated after the sermon. Guests and catechumens (those preparing for baptism) would leave the sanctuary. Only the baptized congregants would remain to partake.

Now, I don’t think churches need to prevent people forcibly from taking the sacrament, but baptism has always been the boundary marker of the church.

[Aaron Blumer] A question I’ve wrestled with:

If God commands us to be baptized and also commands us to “do in remembrance,” how is it right to disobey the latter just because you are already disobeying the former? I guess the bigger question is, where did the tradition of withholding or denying communion as a disciplinary tool come from?

Another question is, where did the tradition of withholding baptism at the point of salvation come from?

[Aaron Blumer] They’re related, but my first question is, how is doing wrong twice better than doing wrong once?

Maybe we need to start by examining why we have unbaptized believers in the church in the first place.

In my experience, baptists essentially withhold baptism by not teaching about it much, especially to new believers (almost never during evangelism). We build such a chasm between baptism and belief, many probably never even suspect that their lack of baptism would be a communion issue.

We could also do a lot to help people understand baptism by removing the anti-Catholic rhetoric. We spend way too much time teaching against infant baptism and baptismal regeneration. This interferes with learning. It’s hard to follow the reasoning of what baptism IS with all the rabbit trails about all the various things baptism is NOT.

We need clear teaching on:

• Why is it wrong for unbaptized believers to take communion?

which requires clear teaching on:

• Why is baptism required of believers?

Then “let a man examine himself, and so let him eat.”

Answer #1 follows the practice and command of God in Ex. 12:43-49.

Another question is, where did the tradition of withholding baptism at the point of salvation come from?

Probably around the time the heated baptistry was invented. ;)

Can someone please point me to the place in the NT where there is a relationship between being baptized and participating in the Lord’s Table? If a person has truly come to saving faith in Christ and is clearly a new creation and living a spirit filled life, what scriptural mandate permits us from telling that believer that he is not permitted to participate in the memorial of what Christ did for him while he waits for his Lord’s return?

In the meantime, is it not incumbant on the leadership of that person’s church to teach why baptism is necessary? In our church, we don’t have our own baptismal, and doing a baptism is something of a logistical undertaking, so we baptize when we have several to do at once. Do we forbid those brothers and sisters in Christ the joy and fellowship of the Lord’s Table while they wait? Is participation in that ordinance not as much a statement of faith as a baptism?

I know the answer to the second para is purely opinion and many of you have your differing views, but if someone can point to scripture, other than the Exodus text that seems to equate baptism with circumcision, I would appreciate it, because I can’t find it.

Peace

[CPHurst] Answer #1 follows the practice and command of God in Ex. 12:43-49.

I’m assuming you are responding to Dan’s comment. Circumcision’s direct relationship to the NT would be salvation. Throughout the NT, circumcision is talked about in terms of physical and spiritual. Take Romans 2:25ff. ‘He is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh, but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter’, all of which is speaking of salvation.

Physical circumcision is what granted one access into Judaism, while spiritual circumcision is what grants one access into Christ.

So, Ex would actually be, those who have received spiritual circumcision can partake in communion.

My comment was not directed at Dan intentionally. If it speaks to it then it was purely coincidental when I posted it.

Saying “Circumcision’s direct relationship to the NT would be salvation” comes across as circumcision saved the OT Jews. I don;t think you mean this but I would have worded it differently. Otherwise, I can say then that since baptism replaces circumcision as the saving element for NT Christians. Again, I don’t think you mean that.

In the context of Ex. 12 the physical aspect of circumcision is clearly in view. Only those who identified themselves with Israel through circumcision were admitted into the Passover meal. The New Covenant and other OT passages certainly expand our understanding of circumcision by adding the spiritual dimension to it - that of being circumcised of heart. However this would not have changed the requirements for partaking in the Passover meal after the spiritual dimension was introduced.

Baptism is also a physical requirement for believers as an outward identification with the Christ and a spiritual reality/picture that happens to us at the time of salvation (whether its associated with conversion, regeneration or something else is not my point right now).

Like the Passover meal, partaking of The Lord’s Supper is a serious matter. I am not saying I would tell a deacon to tell someone in a pew they could not have the bread and juice because they know they have not been baptized. I am saying that as a pastor I would instruct a new believer on when I think they can take Communion and why they need to be Baptized first. I would be stressing the seriousness of the act and that since Baptism is the NT form of identification with the body of Christ/people of God then they need to do that first before they can be involved in Communion.

Circumcision and Baptism have both/and physical/spiritual dimensions to them and I see a big theological continuity between them in this regard while recognizing that the discontinuity between them is that one has replaced the other.

The only argument I’ve heard against communion before baptism is the idea that:

1. an unbaptized believer is disobedient



2. disobedient believers should not take communion

However, if we’re going to leave baptism out of evangelism, and counsel new believers to wait several years before baptism[1] , it may be difficult to make the case that all unbaptized believers ARE disobedient.

I’m no longer sure of my position (2nd or 3rd poll option), so I’ve canceled my vote.

––

1. I was saved at 9, baptized at 15 or 16. Most people I know who grew up in credobaptists circles had a similar experience.

[CPHurst] Saying “Circumcision’s direct relationship to the NT would be salvation” comes across as circumcision saved the OT Jews. I don;t think you mean this but I would have worded it differently. Otherwise, I can say then that since baptism replaces circumcision as the saving element for NT Christians. Again, I don’t think you mean that.

The direct relation (perhaps better would be correlation or counterpart?) is explained by what I said following. In the same way ‘physical circumcision is what granted one access into Judaism’…’spiritual circumcision is what grants one access into Christ.’ Or even, in the same way physical circumcision allowed one to partake in the passover meal, spiritual circumcision allows one to partake in the once for all passover, Jesus Christ. This is my body, as He breaks the passover bread, which is actually quite interesting as He was probably pulling the center piece which symbolizes God the Son. This is my blood which is the new covenant, as he passes the cup.

Circumcision was a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham. (Gen 17) If one did not receive the sign, they were broken off from the covenant. So, it is not an identification that allowed them to participate in the passover (although circumcision certainly does identify them), but whether or not they were part of the covenant.

On the other hand, baptism is an outward action of an inward reality that does not affect our relationship to the promise for ‘to Abraham and his Seed [Christ] , were the promises made’, ‘For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.’ (Gal 3:16; Rom 4:13)

However, ‘In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands’ at which point we become partakers of the ‘common wealth of Israel’, ‘For they are not all Israel who are of Israel’, and part of ‘the covenants of promise’, because ‘in Christ Jesus…we ‘have been brought near by the blood of Christ.’ (Eph 2:12-13, Romans 9:6)

So, the main points are:

Circumcision was Abraham’s part of the covenant

Being part of the covenant is what allowed one to participate in passover

Baptism is a symbol of an inward reality

Spiritual circumcision is the closest thing to OT circumcision

And in conjunction with this: http://sharperiron.org/comment/28749#comment-28749, I think examining oneself has to do with making sure we are taking communion to proclaim the Lord’s death till he comes and to make sure we are not eating to just eat. Although, I still think it is a good time to examine oneself to make sure we are not ‘hiding’ any sin.