Baptism / Lord's Supper Questions

[JML]

A few questions regarding baptism and the Lord's Supper

1. Does your church, session, etc. permit the partaking of the Lord's Supper by a visiting Baptist (for Presbyterians) or a visiting Presbyterian (for Baptists)? This is assuming that the person has a credible profession of faith. The reason I ask is that some (most) baptists require immersion as a prerequisite for partaking of the Lord's Supper and I saw on another thread a Presbyterian saying that you had to be a Presbyterian to partake of the Lord's Supper in his church.

2. This question is more for Baptists but the Presbyterians are welcome to weigh in as well. If you live in a climate or scenario where baptism is sometimes difficult during certain parts of the year (cold weather, no baptistry), would you permit a person who has recently made a profession of faith to partake of the Lord's Supper before they are baptized or would you require them to wait the necessary time until arrangements can be made to immerse them? This is not necessarily as much trouble for Presbyterians because you don't need as much water.

 

[tcalbrecht]

We have weekly communion in our congregation. We typically introduce that portion of the service with a reading from 1 Cor. 11 and an announcement that all are welcome who are members in good standing of a Bible-believing/gospel church. They must not be under disciple. We also warn them about harboring known, unconfessed sin or other hypocrisies.

Reformed/Presbyterians as a rule do not make the mode of baptism an issue. In most Christian churches being a member in good standing implies that one has been properly baptized according the order of that church/denomination.

 

[Jack K]

In my experience it's highly unusual for Presbyterians to limit participation only to Presbyterians, unless the church refuses ALL non-members of that particular church. Being baptized the proper way would not be an issue, since Presbyterians generally accept an immersian as valid.

The PCA church I'm a member of issues a warning, but welcomes all who profess faith. No church membership or baptism is required. If a person were to attend regularly and partake regularly without being baptized, the elders would probably urge the person to either profess faith and be baptized or else refrain. In theory, such a person could be barred from the table if they persisted in being unrepentant (non-professing or refusing baptism) but I've never seen it come to that.

The Baptist church I attend (not fully Reformed, but Calvinistic and elder-led) has only recently started issuing a warning. All who profess faith are welcome. I'm a Presbyterian and it's never been an issue.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

At the PCA Church I am a member of all are welcome to receive communion as long as they are a member in good standing of a church that teaches salvation by grace through faith, and have examined themselves before hand.

 

[JML]

At the PCA Church I am a member of all are welcome to receive communion as long as they are a member in good standing of a church that teaches salvation by grace through faith, and have examined themselves before hand.

So the consensus seems to be that Presbyterians will accept Baptists at the Lord's Table. What about Baptists? Because almost every Baptist church I have been a part of or been to state that you have to be a member in good standing of a bible believing church and have been baptized by immersion. So, Baptists, would you permit a Presbyterian to partake of the Lord's Supper since they have not been immersed?

 

[Osage Bluestem]

At the PCA Church I am a member of all are welcome to receive communion as long as they are a member in good standing of a church that teaches salvation by grace through faith, and have examined themselves before hand.

So the consensus seems to be that Presbyterians will accept Baptists at the Lord's Table. What about Baptists? Because almost every Baptist church I have been a part of or been to state that you have to be a member in good standing of a bible believing church and have been baptized by immersion. So, Baptists, would you permit a Presbyterian to partake of the Lord's Supper since they have not been immersed?

The baptist church I grew up in only accepted members of the local congregation at the Lord's table. Other baptists couldn't even take it it they weren't a member of our local church.

 

[larryjf]

1. Does your church, session, etc. permit the partaking of the Lord's Supper by a visiting Baptist (for Presbyterians)

We do allow Baptists to partake of the Lord's Supper. Salvation is the focus for the Lord's Supper, and we believe faithful Baptists to be saved.

---------- Post added at 04:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:24 PM ----------

By the way, I'm Presbyterian and was baptized by a Presbyterian Pastor by immersion...so i guess i have my bases covered.

 

[rbcbob]

We allow visiting Paedobaptists to partake of the Lord’s supper.

We require membership be entered into by those who have been immersed.

 

[JML]

Hi Bob,

What are your thoughts on my second question in the OP. I know it is an odd scenario.

 

[rbcbob]

Hi Bob,

What are your thoughts on my second question in the OP. I know it is an odd scenario.

See Dagg, On Church Order, "Immersion in Cold Climates", pp. 308-312

 

[dudley]

I am a Presbyterian and was baptised by immersion in the Baptist church. I am welcome to the ordinance of the Lords Supper when I visit the Baptist church.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

A few questions regarding baptism and the Lord's Supper

1. Does your church, session, etc. permit the partaking of the Lord's Supper by a visiting Baptist (for Presbyterians) or a visiting Presbyterian (for Baptists)? This is assuming that the person has a credible profession of faith. The reason I ask is that some (most) baptists require immersion as a prerequisite for partaking of the Lord's Supper and I saw on another thread a Presbyterian saying that you had to be a Presbyterian to partake of the Lord's Supper in his church.

2. This question is more for Baptists but the Presbyterians are welcome to weigh in as well. If you live in a climate or scenario where baptism is sometimes difficult during certain parts of the year (cold weather, no baptistry), would you permit a person who has recently made a profession of faith to partake of the Lord's Supper before they are baptized or would you require them to wait the necessary time until arrangements can be made to immerse them? This is not necessarily as much trouble for Presbyterians because you don't need as much water.

To the first question, our church practices closed communion. Our confession of faith (BF&M) states:

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper. BF&M VII

Now, this is the stated position of the church. However, our method of fencing the table consists of stating who may and may not receive the ordinance worthily. A warning is issued to those who should not. Then we proceed with the Supper.

As for the second question, No. We would require them to wait until the necessary arrangements could be made to immerse them. However, we have an indoor baptistry. Tough, I do love outdoor baptisms, we only do them when the weather permits. So in the winter we would do them in the church house.

 

[Marrow Man]

Our church (Presbyterian) allows Baptists to come to the Table. The only require is one be a baptized, professing Christian. Of course, examination is also a condition in coming to the Lord's Table.

My wife and I have visited Bob's church (Reformed Baptist), and they have allowed us to come to the Table with them in sweet fellowship. If I recall correctly, the requirement/warning spoken by the pastor was very similar to what I say as well.

I have a couple of side questions to ask of Baptists who would require immersion (and I hope these progress, not derail, the thread): if a Presbyterian were to visit the congregation, but he were a former Baptist who switched to Presbyterianism later in life, would that be viewed differently? In other words, he or she is an immersed professing believer, but not currently a Baptist, would that be a problem? And secondly, what if this immersion took place in conjunction with a false profession of faith. In other words, if the person was immersed, but later came to faith (and was not re-baptized after this), and was now Presbyterian, would he or she be permitted to come to the Table?

I am not asking these questions to start any kind of a debate whatsoever; I am only curious as to the thinking of Baptists in these matters in hopes of better understanding and mutual fellowship.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

If a Presbyterian were to visit the congregation, but he were a former Baptist who switched to Presbyterianism later in life, would that be viewed differently? In other words, he or she is an immersed professing believer, but not currently a Baptist, would that be a problem?

No.

 

[Rich Koster]

I was welcomed, as a Baptist, at a PCA. The pastor knew about me, via some friends who had joined recently, and I was not interviewed.

 

[Marrow Man]

If a Presbyterian were to visit the congregation, but he were a former Baptist who switched to Presbyterianism later in life, would that be viewed differently? In other words, he or she is an immersed professing believer, but not currently a Baptist, would that be a problem?

No.

C.M. what would exactly be the problem? I think I'm not understanding the BF&M perhaps. Is it because of the person is not a member of a Baptist church? Or would it be only for members of the local congregation where the Supper is being served?

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

If a Presbyterian were to visit the congregation, but he were a former Baptist who switched to Presbyterianism later in life, would that be viewed differently? In other words, he or she is an immersed professing believer, but not currently a Baptist, would that be a problem?

No.

C.M. what would exactly be the problem? I think I'm not understanding the BF&M perhaps. Is it because of the person is not a member of a Baptist church? Or would it be only for members of the local congregation where the Supper is being served?

You asked if it would be a problem. I said "No" it wouldn't. They would meet the requirements of our confession.

 

[Marrow Man]

Yes, I just realized that (after my wife pointed it out), and it's embarrassingly stupid on my part. I was already deleting my response. Thanks for the reply.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Not a problem. I should have been clearer.

 

[JML]

In other words, if the person was immersed, but later came to faith...and was now Presbyterian, would he or she be permitted to come to the Table?

I knew it. So they were a Baptist and lost and now that they are Presbyterian they have come to faith. Presbyterians are nice to us and all but they consider us not in faith.

Where is the "I know you didn't mean it to sound like that but it came out that way" smiley?

---------- Post added at 11:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 AM ----------

For those who require immersion to partake of the Lord's Supper, help me understand. Since a Presbyterian is a part of the universal church, why would the Lord's Supper be denied to them?

 

[Marrow Man]

In other words, if the person was immersed, but later came to faith...and was now Presbyterian, would he or she be permitted to come to the Table?

I knew it. So they were a Baptist and lost and now that they are Presbyterian they have come to faith. Presbyterians are nice to us and all but they consider us not in faith.

Where is the "I know you didn't mean it to sound like that but it came out that way" smiley?

Dude, I was talking about myself! I'm the hypothetical. I was immersed at around age 10 in a Baptist church because I "walked the aisle" and said "yes" to a couple of questions. I came to faith in Christ at age 21 while in college, and attended the same Baptist church on weekends home from college. I later united with a PCA church, and Presbyterians of course do not re-baptized. So, I was asking, even though I was technically "immersed," how Baptist churches that require immersion would view my coming to the Table.

 

[rbcbob]

Our church (Presbyterian) allows Baptists to come to the Table. The only require is one be a baptized, professing Christian. Of course, examination is also a condition in coming to the Lord's Table.

My wife and I have visited Bob's church (Reformed Baptist), and they have allowed us to come to the Table with them in sweet fellowship. If I recall correctly, the requirement/warning spoken by the pastor was very similar to what I say as well.

I have a couple of side questions to ask of Baptists who would require immersion (and I hope these progress, not derail, the thread): if a Presbyterian were to visit the congregation, but he were a former Baptist who switched to Presbyterianism later in life, would that be viewed differently? In other words, he or she is an immersed professing believer, but not currently a Baptist, would that be a problem? And secondly, what if this immersion took place in conjunction with a false profession of faith. In other words, if the person was immersed, but later came to faith (and was not re-baptized after this), and was now Presbyterian, would he or she be permitted to come to the Table?

I am not asking these questions to start any kind of a debate whatsoever; I am only curious as to the thinking of Baptists in these matters in hopes of better understanding and mutual fellowship.

Tim,
We would welcome visiting baptized (according to their sincere beliefs) believers to our table. In the specifics you mention we would have reservations about receiving such into membership.

 

[JML]

In other words, if the person was immersed, but later came to faith...and was now Presbyterian, would he or she be permitted to come to the Table?

I knew it. So they were a Baptist and lost and now that they are Presbyterian they have come to faith. Presbyterians are nice to us and all but they consider us not in faith.

Where is the "I know you didn't mean it to sound like that but it came out that way" smiley?

Dude, I was talking about myself! I'm the hypothetical. I was immersed at around age 10 in a Baptist church because I "walked the aisle" and said "yes" to a couple of questions. I came to faith in Christ at age 21 while in college, and attended the same Baptist church on weekends home from college. I later united with a PCA church, and Presbyterians of course do not re-baptized. So, I was asking, even though I was technically "immersed," how Baptist churches that require immersion would view my coming to the Table.

Hey Tim,

You do know that I was kidding, right?

 

[Marrow Man]

As was I, friend! Oh, it's a true story, but I was kidding in my "offense."

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Tim,
We would welcome visiting baptized (according to their sincere beliefs) believers to our table. In the specifics you mention we would have reservations about receiving such into membership.

Bob,

Do you not see the inconsistency of saying that a Presbyterian brother is allowed at the Communion Table but not into the church's communion (i.e. membership)?

In my mind, there are only two consistent positions:

1. Those sprinkled as infants are allowed at the Lord's Table and into the churches membership (The position of John Bunyan).
2. Those sprinkled as infants are not allowed at the Lord's Table and therefore not allowed into the church's membership (The position of Gill, Dagg, Conner, et al).

I am sincerely interested in hearing your rationale.

 

[Marrow Man]

Ah, but C.M., you have the additional complication of the matter which you accepted above: not all Presbyterians were sprinkled as infants. For example, I am Presbyterian but was not baptized as an infant.

I believe that Scott Clark has posited the opposing viewpoint (from a URC/Reformed Church perspective) -- they will not allow those who will not unite with their church because of a rejection of paedo-baptism to also come to the Lord's Table. The rationale: if you reject one sacrament then why would you accept the other? Of course, it's not exactly the same thing coming from the other side (e.g., both Presbyterians and Baptists accept adult baptisms), it's just interesting that some folks but both sides link the sacraments together while others do not.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Ah, but C.M., you have the additional complication of the matter which you accepted above: not all Presbyterians were sprinkled as infants. For example, I am Presbyterian but was not baptized as an infant.

I believe that Scott Clark has posited the opposing viewpoint (from a URC/Reformed Church perspective) -- they will not allow those who will not unite with their church because of a rejection of paedo-baptism to also come to the Lord's Table. The rationale: if you reject one sacrament then why would you accept the other? Of course, it's not exactly the same thing coming from the other side (e.g., both Presbyterians and Baptists accept adult baptisms), it's just interesting that some folks but both sides link the sacraments together while others do not.

Not at all. At this point, I'm only concerned with those who were sprinkled as infants and have yet to receive believer's baptism. You (and Ligon Duncan ) would be welcomed to the Table, and into membership (respectively).

 

[Kiffin]

To the first question, our church practices closed communion. Our confession of faith (BF&M) states:

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper. BF&M VII

Now, this is the stated position of the church. However, our method of fencing the table consists of stating who may and may not receive the ordinance worthily. A warning is issued to those who should not. Then we proceed with the Supper.

Hey Pastor,

Do you make a distinction between closed and close communion? For example, if there is a visiting Baptist, would you allow them to partake?

 

[dudley]

If a Presbyterian were to visit the congregation, but he were a former Baptist who switched to Presbyterianism later in life, would that be viewed differently? In other words, he or she is an immersed professing believer, but not currently a Baptist, would that be a problem?

No.

C.M. what would exactly be the problem? I think I'm not understanding the BF&M perhaps. Is it because of the person is not a member of a Baptist church? Or would it be only for members of the local congregation where the Supper is being served?

You asked if it would be a problem. I said "No" it wouldn't. They would meet the requirements of our confession.

I agree and said earlier in this thread that I am a Presbyterian and was baptised by immersion in the Baptist church. "I am welcome to the ordinance of the Lords Supper when I visit the Baptist church." it is not a problem. I am allowed to come to the Table with them in sweet fellowship as a fellow Reformed Protestant Christian.

 

[Marrow Man]

Not at all. At this point, I'm only concerned with those who were sprinkled as infants and have yet to receive believer's baptism. You (and Ligon Duncan ) would be welcomed to the Table, and into membership (respectively).

Does Mark Dever know about this?