Who Should Take the Lord's Supper?

Who should partake of the Lord's Supper? Everyone, or just the members of the church? The right answer is neither. The Lord's supper is for those who have been baptized out of obedience to Christ.

Some say, "only those in the church and under the care of the elders should take communion." Now, we know in the early church they celebrated the Lord's Table every Sunday (Acts 20:7). Yet Luke, Paul's co-worker, took communion in this church at Troas, yet he was not a member of it, nor in submission to their elders in any formal way. So that view doesn't hold up.

Others say, "We shouldn't limit the Lord's Table to anyone." However, the matter of taking the Lord's Table is a matter of discipleship to Jesus Christ. If we follow His words, we will offer communion to all who have been baptized.

Let me explain.

In Mat. 28:19-20, Jesus teaches that those who are baptized are to be taught to obey Him in all things. The "all things" includes the Lord's Supper, for our Lord said, "Do this, in remembrance of Me." Therefore, this pattern of baptism first, the Lord's Table after, is the "fence" around the Lord's Table.

While membership is of great importance, it is not a fence around the Lord's Table. Nor is communion just to be offered to people based on their own subjective faith. We have something objective to guide people - have they been baptized out of obedience to Christ?

This pattern, baptism prior to communion, is observed in Acts 2:41-42. So in Mat. 28 we have direct command, and in Acts 2 we have a clear example of that command being followed.

There is an exception - those under public church discipline. These should have the Lord's Table withheld from them, if they have been publicly admonished, as Paul makes clear in 2 Thessalonians 3:14.

However, I should add, the baptism in Mat. 28:19 Jesus commands is the baptism of a person who consciously wishes to be His disciple. To baptize a person, and then withhold communion from them, except in the case of discipline, is to fail to uphold our Lord's words in Mat. 28:19-20, which requires us to teach all those baptized to obey all the Lord's commands. Thus, for all who are baptized, they should participate in the Lord's Table also. This helps us counsel those of tender conscience, who look to their own imperfection instead of Christ's perfection in deciding whether or not to partake.

This position, baptism prior to communion, requires that those baptized do so out of a "free will" decision to identify with the Lord in the waters of baptism. In other words, it would be unwise for a church to baptize someone who has not intentionally expressed their desire to be Christ's disciple, out of personal faith.

I Usually Don't Like Poetry, but check this out...

Holy Sonnet XII: Why Are We By All Creatures Waited On?

John Donne (1572-1631)

Why are we by all creatures waited on?
Why do the prodigal elements supply
Life and food to me, being more pure than I,
Simple, and further from corruption?
Why brook’st thou, ignorant horse, subjection?
Why dost thou, bull, and bore so seelily,
Dissemble weakness, and by one man’s stroke die,
Whose whole kind you might swallow and feed upon?
Weaker I am, woe is me, and worse than you,
You have not sinned, nor need be timorous.
But wonder at a greater wonder, for to us
Created nature doth these things subdue,
But their Creator, whom sin nor nature tied,
For us, His creatures, and His foes, hath died.

Way of the Master

Ray Comfort does it again -

http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=103847642034&h=atdTH&u=5dNz6&ref=nf

I preached MJ 2 weeks ago - his life and death opened up Romans 1:24-32 for us, teaching us that while man wants to blur all lines, especially the line between death and life, God defines all of life by His own Word.

All Roads Lead to Rome

Well, I like the old saying, but it ain't true. The true saying should refer to the road that ran straight from Jerusalem to Rome.

The gospel of God was first preached in Jerusalem and ended up in Rome, if you adopt a "book of Acts" worldview. But the road implies so much more.

For in Rome the gospel proved it could conquer the "most worldly" place on earth, and do so without apostolic planting. But not without apostolic care when about ready to fracture.

Look down the road from Rome, in the direction to Jerusalem, and look past Jerusalem to Corinth in Greece. If you squint and focus, you can Paul coming, the great apostle to the Gentiles. The road is important. Paul is writing from Rome, ready to go to Jerusalem, so he can turn around and come to Rome.

Did you hear Romans 1:1-7 on Sunday, May 24? If not, go back and download it (www.gracechurchministry.org). If you did, you are ready for Paul to begin the greatest NT letter (IMHO).

Naughty Evangelicals

That the palate of today's evangelicals is pandering toward the offensive is old news. That the movement has captured so many defenders is. As well, many people want to sit on the side lines and wait for all the "big names" to get together and rebuke the Mark Driscolls and Ed Youngs of the Internet age.

But don't wait for anything like that to happen. In today's media driven hype, might makes right.

So make a decision now, to never listen to a man who preaches with lewdness, or unseemliness, in the area of sexuality. A man who gets laughs with sex talk is not sent by Christ, beloved. Now, if a man publicly repents of his sin, that may be different. But then again, repentance would mean stepping down, which would be good for the body of Christ, but not for the house of cards they call church.

See 2 Peter 2:18-22 for a word that ought to send chills down our collective spines.

c.f. http://www.shepherdsfellowship.org/pulpit/posts.aspx?ID=4168

Is Infant Baptism Sin?

The better question is, "is infant baptism" (IB) contrary to the gospel?

The reason why I say this is because to call it sin then requires a specific response along the lines of Matthew 18:15. And this issue, having been made now public by Mark Dever, allows for further discussion of something normally swept under ecclesiastical carpets (see http://blog.9marks.org/2009/03/the-sin-of-infant-baptism-written-by-a-sinning-baptist.html).

But you'll notice that far from responding to the issue has sin, our brother fellowships with brethren who baptise infants. Obviously he doesn't regard it as sin, say as he would sin in his church, right?

Since the gospel can be preached without the doctrine of baptism included it isn't contrary to the gospel. Paul writes forcefully that "Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel" (1 Corinthians 1:17).

Instead, IB is a religious practice inherited from one's theological forefathers to whom one feels indebted. It is not sin, but it is dangerous since it confuses the proper biblical response to the gospel, placing baptism prior to faith. When practitioners of IB see this, they, like Adoniram Judson, flee the practice for biblical revelation.

Or, as people do in our church who were sprinkled as infants, they get baptised, leaving behind the heritage of beloved theological forefathers for a clear conscience (1 Peter 3:21).

The Soldiers and Jesus -Mark 15:16-21

Mark 15:16-21

The abuse of the soldiers on Jesus is way over the top: mocking, spitting, beating, taunting, crown of thorns, bowing and kneeling.

And this comes after they finished scourging Him. Shouldn't their savagery have ended at the scouring - such a vicious torture in itself? Why go on doing so much to Him? What's the point?

The numbers are ridiculous - 600 to 1. Six hundred soldiers, a "cohort" (v. 16) versus one man, Jesus.

The torture is ridiculous - read the passage or listen to the sermon - www.gracechurchministry.org, should be up March 3rd.

Until you realize God's purpose. Simon of Cyrene and his 2 sons - Alexander and Rufus (v. 21), were saved by the ridiculous.

Had not the soldiers "kept beating" and abusing Jesus, He would have gone to the cross earlier and Simon, a "passer-by" (v. 21) would not have carried His cross.

Mark's original readers knew both Alex and Rufus, probably in the church of Rome (Romans 16:13). Not all of them knew Simon, their Dad. They also knew the mother. No doubt, the Father became a Christian and led his family to the Lord.

God's sovereignty. Jesus is on the way out (v. 20), Simon on his way in. Simon is pressed into service, learns of Christ, believes. We now know why the reason for the "over-the-top" abuse of Christ by the 600 soldiers. It was from the Father. The abuse was from the Father, who was punishing the Son with the full depth of our depravity through the depraved soldiers. How great is our sin? How deep is our love of it as seen in the soldiers?

So if you ask Simon, "Simon, are you glad the soldiers did what they did to Jesus, what would he answer? Let me know.

Off to Shepherds Conference this week, then some R and R in Phoenix, with the golf clubs. Back March 12.

"Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life" (Revelation 2:10)