Acceptance of Non-Immersion for Lord's Supper

[JML]

For my fellow credo brethren: would you accept an adult for the Lord's Supper if they had only been baptized by sprinkling or pouring under the following separate circumstances. I have my opinion but I am interested in yours:

1) Baptized as an infant, have not been baptized post-confession of faith
2) Baptized by sprinkling or pouring as an adult post-confession of faith

This is also under the assumption that the baptism took place in a Bible believing church such as one of our Presbyterian brethren's church and the adult has now made a credible confession of faith. Also assumed is that they are not seeking membership at your church. For any Presbyterian brethren who are unaware of Baptist practice, it is generally accepted among most (but not all) Baptists that a person has to have been baptized "properly" (as in by immersion) to partake of the Lord's Supper. Thoughts?

 

[Herald]

I am not willing to allow mode to prohibit admission to the Lord's table. As far as paedobaptism, I share Bunyan's view to an extent. If a person stand before God in good conscience about their paedo baptism, I am not inclined to bar them from the table.
I may be in the minority among confessional Baptists, but that's fine.

 

[VictorBravo]

We would gladly share the Lord's table with either 1 or 2. And we do fence the table strictly. The criteria are confession of faith, prior baptism in a church, and no-open unrepented sin.

As you noted, membership requires adherence to the LBCF. That's not my personal view, but the position of our church.

 

[raekwon]

For what it's worth, I shared Bill's view when I was credobaptist.

 

[Skyler]

I have no problem with allowing dunked/sprinkled/doused baptisees to the Lord's Supper, given that they are to the best of our ability to determine walking with the Lord.

I like Dunkin' Donuts with sprinkles.

 

[Bengibor]

I know of such pastors among Baptists and other evangelicals who are reluctant to admit those who had been 'improperly baptized' to the holy communion. The church I mostly go to in my area (reformed baptist) is very open and the pastor there allows all of us who had been baptized as babies and by sprinkling/pouring to share the Eucharist with others.
I don't find the amount of water important to the validity of the sacrament and also I don't find the amount of received bread and wine important for someone's spirituality.

 

[Herald]

We would gladly share the Lord's table with either 1 or 2. And we do fence the table strictly. The criteria are confession of faith, prior baptism in a church, and no-open unrepented sin.

As you noted, membership requires adherence to the LBCF. That's not my personal view, but the position of our church.

Vic,

Interesting. We do not require adherence to the LBC for membership. One must understand that we are a confessional church and all disputes will be settled by the confession, which is our statement of faith.

 

[DMcFadden]

I have always belonged to Baptist churches where all "believers" (regardless of mode of baptism) were admitted to the table.

 

[KMK]

For my fellow credo brethren: would you accept an adult for the Lord's Supper if they had only been baptized by sprinkling or pouring under the following separate circumstances. I have my opinion but I am interested in yours:

1) Baptized as an infant, have not been baptized post-confession of faith
2) Baptized by sprinkling or pouring as an adult post-confession of faith

This is also under the assumption that the baptism took place in a Bible believing church such as one of our Presbyterian brethren's church and the adult has now made a credible confession of faith. Also assumed is that they are not seeking membership at your church. For any Presbyterian brethren who are unaware of Baptist practice, it is generally accepted among most (but not all) Baptists that a person has to have been baptized "properly" (as in by immersion) to partake of the Lord's Supper. Thoughts?

It would depend upon how the church fenced the table and that decision is for the elders as a group to decide, not me as an individual. My personal opinion sides with Bill's, but I am not married to that opinion.

 

[VictorBravo]

Vic,

Interesting. We do not require adherence to the LBC for membership. One must understand that we are a confessional church and all disputes will be settled by the confession, which is our statement of faith.

I was a bit imprecise. Our constitution allows membership to those who are in substantial agreement with the aims and doctrines of our local assembly. The LBCF is an "adequate summary" of our doctrines.

So, as applied, members have to substantially agree with the LBCF. (And I don't have the time right now to explain what that means, but generally speaking, it means that we are not going to quibble over whether you think the pope is the antichrist, but if you deny the sovereignty of God, etc. that is a big deal).