Baptist view of the Lord's Supper given to the unbaptized

[toddpedlar]

The subject line says it all.

In most baptist churches that I am aware of, it is normal practice for the Lord's Supper to be explicitly offered to both baptized and non-baptized alike. Those who "believe" are told they can partake, and in cases I'm familiar with, baptism isn't even mentioned. I'm wondering about the history of this practice, and whether there are any calvinistic baptist brethren here who can tell me about this from their point of view - I'm assuming they reject it?

At any rate, I find this an amazing departure from what is in my view clearly Biblical - the requirement of baptism prior to communing with the church. I just don't understand how the contrary can be maintained. It seems that if one is offering the Lord's Supper to the unbaptized, but warning them that they must truly be trusting in Christ if they are to partake, is catamount to denying baptism to those who ought to be baptized, in addition to opening the sacrament to those who have not had the initiatory covenant sign placed upon them.

Thoughts?

Todd

 

[Scott Bushey]

Todd,
The sacrament of baptism outside of presbyterian circles is not seen as a sacrament, but an outward profession of what was accomplished by the HS already.

 

[youthevang]

I am speaking as a former Baptist but someone should correct me if I am wrong. The Southern Baptist have a document called the Baptist Faith and Message that can be viewed on their website. I think it was in 2000 when the BFM was updated to only allow those who are baptized Christians (meaning by believer's baptism) to partake of the Lord's Supper. Which means (and this happend with my friend who was attending our church) that a presbyterian could not partake of the Lord's Supper.

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by youthevang]

 

[toddpedlar]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Todd,
The sacrament of baptism outside of presbyterian circles is not seen as a sacrament, but an outward profession of what was accomplished by the HS already.

Hi Scott -

Yes, I understand this - but this is not (I believe) historically the case with baptists. Even if it is seen as an outward profession of what was accomplished by the HS inwardly, there is no reason why the unbaptized should be admitted to the Lord's Table in baptist churches. I'm wondering when this practice began, because I would be shocked to discover that it ws any older than a couple hundred years or so. My guess is that it came in with 19th century revivalism... but any other info anyone can provide would be appreciated.

Todd

 

[Steve Owen]

Hello Todd,
You wrote:-

I'm wondering when this practice began, because I would be shocked to discover that it ws any older than a couple hundred years or so. My guess is that it came in with 19th century revivalism... but any other info anyone can provide would be appreciated.

Prepare to be shocked, brother, because the practice goes back to John Bunyan. Strict Baptist churches require that all communicants have been scripturally baptized, but for me, God forbid that I should keep any child of God from His table over the question of baptism.

Martin

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Hello Todd,
You wrote:-

I'm wondering when this practice began, because I would be shocked to discover that it ws any older than a couple hundred years or so. My guess is that it came in with 19th century revivalism... but any other info anyone can provide would be appreciated.

Prepare to be shocked, brother, because the practice goes back to John Bunyan. Strict Baptist churches require that all communicants have been scripturally baptized, but for me, God forbid that I should keep any child of God from His table over the question of baptism.

Martin

It does go back to Bunyan. Baptists are left with only two choices:

1. Declare that all those who have not undergone adult baptism by immersion are unbelievers and not a part of the Church of God (Hiscox and most baptists until the 20th century)

or

2. Ignore the requirement for baptism (Bunyan and most post-20th century baptists)

The obvious third option is almost never taken (witness the furor at Piper's church): accept an non-immersive adult baptism as a baptism.

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by youthevang
I am speaking as a former Baptist but someone should correct me if I am wrong. The Southern Baptist have a document called the Baptist Faith and Message that can be viewed on their website. I think it was in 2000 when the BFM was updated to only allow those who are baptized Christians (meaning by believer's baptism) to partake of the Lord's Supper. Which means (and this happend with my friend who was attending our church) that a presbyterian could not partake of the Lord's Supper.

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by youthevang]

Brother,

I believe this in fact is wrong. To my knowledge the BF&M was not changed at all regarding baptism. Now the church you attended may well have changed its practice. One thing is for sure, Baptist churches are actually far more lenient today in basically practicing open communion. In the 19th and probably well into the 20th century, closed communion was a key Baptist distinctive, where only those who had been baptized by immersion were allowed at the Lord's table

 

[Romans922]

Even if the BFM was changed or not is meaningless because the churches of the SBC don't have to follow it (to my knowledge).

 

[toddpedlar]

I'm wondering if people have missed my point.

My question is when did the practice of NOT being concerned about whether someone was baptized or not before offering them the Lord's Supper begin?

I ask in part, remembering when I was growing up in a baptist church that for a few years I partook of the Lord's Supper, and was never (in that church) baptized. My baptism came when my family became members of a conservative Lutheran congregation - at that time, my parents took membership vows, and I and my brother (12 and 8) were baptized on the spot.

Martin, when you make reference to "the practice" going on in the time of John Bunyan, are you referring to the practice of barring from the table all those the church did not consider to be scripturally Baptized? I'm not shocked by that at all - that's precisely what I expected that baptists then did. What I would be shocked by is the loose treatment that characterizes many modern baptist churches in admitting essentially anyone to the table. In many ways what we see the Lord's supper functioning as the only real ordinance. People are invited to take communion if they believe in Jesus, but I've rarely heard people invited to be baptized if they believe in Jesus. So, people can functionally live for years in such churches, taking communion, (unworthily In my humble opinion), but never be pressed to undergo baptism.

Todd

 

[toddpedlar]

Honestly, while I have serious problems with the non-acceptance of infant baptism as valid by baptist churches, I applaud their consistency if they bar the "unbaptized" (whether actually unbaptized, or unbaptized in their view of baptism) from the Table.

Todd

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by toddpedlar
I'm wondering if people have missed my point.

My question is when did the practice of NOT being concerned about whether someone was baptized or not before offering them the Lord's Supper begin?

I ask in part, remembering when I was growing up in a baptist church that for a few years I partook of the Lord's Supper, and was never (in that church) baptized. My baptism came when my family became members of a conservative Lutheran congregation - at that time, my parents took membership vows, and I and my brother (12 and 8) were baptized on the spot.

Martin, when you make reference to "the practice" going on in the time of John Bunyan, are you referring to the practice of barring from the table all those the church did not consider to be scripturally Baptized? I'm not shocked by that at all - that's precisely what I expected that baptists then did. What I would be shocked by is the loose treatment that characterizes many modern baptist churches in admitting essentially anyone to the table. In many ways what we see the Lord's supper functioning as the only real ordinance. People are invited to take communion if they believe in Jesus, but I've rarely heard people invited to be baptized if they believe in Jesus. So, people can functionally live for years in such churches, taking communion, (unworthily In my humble opinion), but never be pressed to undergo baptism.

Todd

Todd, I think this practice became widespread at some point in the 20th century but appears to be generally rare prior to that. The SBC book "Baptist Why and Why Not" published in 1900 and edited by J.M. Frost defends close communion (and monergism too), leading one to believe that was the default position at the time. http://elbourne.org/baptist/whybaptist/

To the Baptist mind of course, a baptism not by immersion is not baptism at all. You are also correct that it is more consistent to bar those not immersed from the table. But churches that do that today are few and far between, other than various Landmark churches. Spurgeon took some heat in his day for admitting Anglicans and others to the table who had not been immersed. Bunyan's view was and is rare. He did not consider baptism to be the admitting point into the church, but rather a profession of faith. This has been discussed at length in several recent threads on this board.

I have witnessed a loose and at times inconsistent practice in a couple of Preybyterian churches in my area too. (And by Presbyterian I don't mean PCUSA either). One church gives a verbal warning, but allows (whether knowingly or unknowingly I don't know) unbaptized children to partake. The other restricts it to those who are "members in good standing of a Bible believing church" to partake, but in application this is inconsistent. For example, there are at least a few regular attenders who take communion there who have been attending for years without ever joining the church. While the churches they came from may consider them to be "members in good standing", it certainly isn't membership in good standing by our standards. Such individuals seemingly want the priviliges of church membership but not the responsibility and discipline. Individials who don't hold current church membership are barred simply because their name isn't on a roll somewhere (which is about all they require in practice if not theory). The session likely set this rule thinking that those attending regularly would join before long (and also allowing visitors from out of town to partake, etc.) without realizing how this policy could be abused by those who regularly attend but do not seek membership. I realize this is not exactly "on point" but I bring it up to show that Presbyterians, even confessional ones, are often inconsistent too.

Whether it's Baptist or Presbyterian churches, it seems for many, the bar for admittance to the Lord's Supper is lower than that for church membership. It is understandable (as Martin pointed out above) why this is so, since many see it being in the interest of charity. But with that being the case, why should anyone join the church since that brings you under the jurisdiction of the church whereas you can basically have all the benefits of membership, including the Lord's Supper, without the responsibility if you just attend regularly.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by toddpedlar
I'm wondering if people have missed my point.

My question is when did the practice of NOT being concerned about whether someone was baptized or not before offering them the Lord's Supper begin?

I ask in part, remembering when I was growing up in a baptist church that for a few years I partook of the Lord's Supper, and was never (in that church) baptized. My baptism came when my family became members of a conservative Lutheran congregation - at that time, my parents took membership vows, and I and my brother (12 and 8) were baptized on the spot.

Martin, when you make reference to "the practice" going on in the time of John Bunyan, are you referring to the practice of barring from the table all those the church did not consider to be scripturally Baptized? I'm not shocked by that at all - that's precisely what I expected that baptists then did. What I would be shocked by is the loose treatment that characterizes many modern baptist churches in admitting essentially anyone to the table. In many ways what we see the Lord's supper functioning as the only real ordinance. People are invited to take communion if they believe in Jesus, but I've rarely heard people invited to be baptized if they believe in Jesus. So, people can functionally live for years in such churches, taking communion, (unworthily In my humble opinion), but never be pressed to undergo baptism.

Todd

Todd,

I agree with Chris Poe, that the practice started (widespread at least) in the 20th century. I think it was a result of the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy, in which Bible-believing Baptists (and Presbyterians, and Methodists, etc) found themselves realigned. No longer wasit strictly Baptists vs. Presbyterians vs. Methodists etc., but it was evangelical, Bible-believing Baptists, Presbyterians & Methodists, etc. vs. liberal (unbelieving) Baptists, Presbyterians & Methodists. So something had to be done to remove that one barrier to fellowship and cooperation. It may hbave been different in Britain, but in the U.S., Bunyan's view was a decided minority (well-nigh until inexistence) before the 1900s.

Evidence of this can be seen from Hiscox's Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches, published initially in 1894(!):

Nearly all Baptists in the United States, and a large part of those in foreign lands, are strict communion in practice (Hiscox, 448)

The second class of open-communonists assert that the ordinances sustain no necessary relation to each other; that baptism can claim no priority over the Supper, and, therefore, it is not a condition, nor prerequisite to it. Consequently, unbaptized persons, if believers - for they do make faith a condition - may partake of the Supper as lawfully baptized persons. Therefore immersion or sprinkling, either or neither, is equally indifferent. This theory virtually denies the memorial and symbolic character of the ordinance...this course of argument, however plausible, is rejected and condemned by the great body of Christians the world over, both Baptists and PedoBaptists. (Hiscox 449)

 

[Pilgrim]

I agree with Fred that the fundamentalist/modernist controversy probably had a lot to do with it since there was sort of a realignment and deemphasis of denominational differences in favor of para-church type ministries in some cases.

 

[toddpedlar]

Originally posted by Pilgrim
I agree with Fred that the fundamentalist/modernist controversy probably had a lot to do with it since there was sort of a realignment and deemphasis of denominational differences in favor of para-church type ministries in some cases.

Ah, sure, that would have fueled it too. Guess that's another
good reason that the Hart bio of Machen will be arriving soon at
my door.

Todd

 

[Steve Owen]

In Britain, Strict and 'open' Baptists have traditionally been split about 50-50, I think. More recently, there have been a number of new Reformed Baptist churches springing up, and these do not usually call themselves 'Baptist' because they hold to the 5 solas as their first priority rather than baptism. It was the more liberal, Baptist Union churches that made Baptism their major distinctive feature, though now they are so liberal that they have no distinctives at all!

The church I currently attend (see below) is a 1689 Confession church and firmly baptistic, but it welcomes all true believers to the Lord's Supper. Since we shall all be eating together at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Isaiah 25:6-9 ), we might just as well get on with it now. This was Bunyan's stance, which he held against Kiffin and others.

Martin

 

[refbaptdude]

A number of Reformed Baptist do hold to the position that the Lord´s Supper and Baptism are sacraments. We do not allow unbaptized individuals to participate in the sacrament and we define valid baptism as credo baptism by immersion.

Grace to all,
Steve Clevenger, Pastor
Covenant Baptist Church
Warrenton, VA
www.covenantbc.org
www.reformedbaptistfellowship.org

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by refbaptdude]

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by refbaptdude]

 

[toddpedlar]

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

The church I currently attend (see below) is a 1689 Confession church and firmly baptistic, but it welcomes all true believers to the Lord's Supper. Since we shall all be eating together at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Isaiah 25:6-9 ), we might just as well get on with it now. This was Bunyan's stance, which he held against Kiffin and others.

Martin

Hi Martin -

Putting aside the question of those who were baptized as infants vs. those who are not baptized at all - let's just deal with those who aren't baptized in any form. Why should they not be encouraged to be baptized first, if they claim faith in Christ?

Todd

 

[SolaScriptura]

Originally posted by toddpedlar
The subject line says it all.

In most baptist churches that I am aware of, it is normal practice for the Lord's Supper to be explicitly offered to both baptized and non-baptized alike. Those who "believe" are told they can partake, and in cases I'm familiar with, baptism isn't even mentioned. I'm wondering about the history of this practice, and whether there are any calvinistic baptist brethren here who can tell me about this from their point of view - I'm assuming they reject it?

At any rate, I find this an amazing departure from what is in my view clearly Biblical - the requirement of baptism prior to communing with the church. I just don't understand how the contrary can be maintained. It seems that if one is offering the Lord's Supper to the unbaptized, but warning them that they must truly be trusting in Christ if they are to partake, is catamount to denying baptism to those who ought to be baptized, in addition to opening the sacrament to those who have not had the initiatory covenant sign placed upon them.

Thoughts?

Todd

Todd, check the writings of John Bunyan. He was a strong opponent to the notion that baptism must precede church membership or communion. Start with "A Confession of my Faith and a Reason for my Practice" then proceed to "Water Baptism, No Bar" then finally, "Peaceable Principles and True."
(However, for the sake of historical accuracy, John Bunyan wasn't the one who started the practice... his church had a policy of open membership/communion prior to Bunyan becoming the pastor... Bunyan just wrote the defense!)

I just wrote a major paper on this issue, so if you have any particular questions about the arguments (on both sides) let me know...

The notion of "open communion" carries the day in most evangelical churches. For instance, consider the two most common systematic theology texts used in evangelical schools: Grudem specifically repudiates the notion that baptism must precede communion. (He argues along the same lines as Bunyan, though not quite as well.) Erickson implicitly excludes baptism as a prerequisite to communion when he simply declares that confession of faith is the requirement for admittance to the Lord's table.
I remember the first time I learned that Baptists require baptism before communion... I thought, "how legalistic!" Now I know that it is just standard, historic Christian practice!

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by SolaScriptura]

 

[R. Scott Clark]

With all due respect to Bunyan, admitting the unbaptized to the covenant renewal feast is morally wrong and dangerous for the unbaptized. That unbaptized person may or may not be elect. They may or may not trust Christ. The church, however, can only deal with profession of faith, i.e., what is "knowable." We don't know, a priori, whether a person is elect or reprobate. We only know whether a person makes a credible profession and whether they live congruently with that profession.

To admit an unbaptized person is tantamount to admitting an unbeliever. A private person is not competent to judge his own profession or his neighbor's. That's the job of the consistory/session.

This is why Reformed theology has always distinguished between covenant initiation and covenant renewal. That some (Baptists or other) admit folk to the covenant renewal feast/Lord's Table is evidence of significant confusion on this point.

If a person is unbaptized, how are they prepared to approach the Holy Table? How can anyone have any confidence that they meet the test of 1 Cor 11?

Further, and more fundamentally, the Supper is not the sign of initiation into the covenant of grace, baptism is. It's this confusion of initiation and renewal that is at the heart of paedocommunion. That's why I say that the paedocommunionists are really crypto-Baptists with a medieval pretense!

Only one who make a credible profession, i.e., who is judged by the consistory/session to live in accordance with their profession is eligible to renew the covenant into to which they were formally entered in baptism. To be sure, the sacraments do not create the covenant of grace (contra the FV) but neither are they inconsequential. As others have suggested, the earliest church fathers could not imagine that one would be allowed to the table without the sign and seal of covenant imitation and appropriate catechesis.

This problem also illustrates that there is much more to being Reformed than confessing predestination. It is an entire, coherent system of theology, ethics, piety, practice.

rsc

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Would it not be heretical to admit unbaptized people to the Church for both membership and communion? The Apostles and Nicean Creeds, along with Ephesians (one faith, one baptism) come to mind immediately.

 

[Steve Owen]

Todd asked:-

Hi Martin -

Putting aside the question of those who were baptized as infants vs. those who are not baptized at all - let's just deal with those who aren't baptized in any form. Why should they not be encouraged to be baptized first, if they claim faith in Christ?

Absolutely! The NT knows nothing about the unbaptized Christian. People trusted in Christ and were baptized. Of the major Christian denominations, only the Salvation Army, to the best of my knowledge, do not practise water baptism.

However, water baptism is not of the esence of Christian conversion. Abel knew nothing of baptism or circumcision, yet his faith was pleasing to God and he still speaks to us today Heb 11 ). I, and those who follow Bunyan in this matter, do not wish to ban true believers who have not been scripturally baptized from receiving the Lord's Supper. We do 'fence the table' against unbelievers, but not against believing Anglicans or others to whom we would wish to hold out the right hand of friendship.

However, I fully respect Steve Clevenger's position. It is for individual congregations to seek the Lord's will on this matter.

Martin

 

[cupotea]

Further, and more fundamentally, the Supper is not the sign of initiation into the covenant of grace, baptism is. It's this confusion of initiation and renewal that is at the heart of paedocommunion.

Excellent point.

There was a time when I thought paedocommunion was acceptable. But after studying the character, nature, and purpose of the sacraments, I had to completely change my stance. Your comment re the confusion of initiation and renewal is exactly at the heart of the issue. This confusion has been propagated at liberal, mainline seminaries (e.g., Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg ... when I went) for years, but now appears to be infecting other, previously more solid, institutions.

In Christ's Name,
Kevin

P.S. Staying home today. Everything cancelled today because of east coast snows. So family devotions rather than congregational worship.

 

[toddpedlar]

Thanks for your comments, all.

This is an issue that I find very interesting, and thank you, Scott (Clark) for your comments - this is indeed a dangerous practice. I am particularly amazed that churches will require some sort of confession of faith (i.e. they at least do expect that partakers of the Supper be professing Christians) but are in such a rush to get them to the table, that they do not require that they be Baptized first. As you noted, I've heard pastors say "and if you have just come to a decision to put your faith in Christ, join us at the table" - almost Stoddard-esque (although this would not be for the purpose of conversion, but almost as a stamp of approval on it, as you said - a replacement initiatory rite). Why, if there is a credible profession of faith, are these allowed to the table but not encouraged to be Baptized first? Are our sensibilities about being accomodating trumping the Biblical picture? I think so. One of the effects this has, i think, is the putting off of baptism for some - perhaps indefinitely.

I'm truly I'm intrigued by Bunyan's stance on this. Unfortunately his are a set of works I don't have - but perhaps I can find the relevant material online. I'd be curious about whether his stance is what it is because he was trying to accommodate those who had been baptized as infants, but weren't baptized in the credo-immersion sense. Is his stance of this nature (in which he would be accepting an infant baptism as valid) or is it more like the modern "if they credibly profess Christ they are admissible, with or without any baptism"? There's a slight difference between these, and I wonder which his view resembles.

Blessings to all on this Lord's Day, and particularly to those along the Eastern seaboard - stay safe and warm.

 

[toddpedlar]

Originally posted by SolaScriptura
I just wrote a major paper on this issue, so if you have any particular questions about the arguments (on both sides) let me know...
[Edited on 2-11-2006 by SolaScriptura]

Hi Ben -

Would you be willing to send a copy of that paper? I'd love to see your discussion in full

Todd

 

[Philip A]

Originally posted by toddpedlar
Hi Ben -

Would you be willing to send a copy of that paper? I'd love to see your discussion in full

Todd

Ben,

If you're making it available, I'd like a copy too!

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Would it not be heretical to admit unbaptized people to the Church for both membership and communion? The Apostles and Nicean Creeds, along with Ephesians (one faith, one baptism) come to mind immediately.

 

[Ivan]

In my past experience with Southern Baptist churches, which is for almost 50 years, I've seen the whole range of beliefs. The church I grew up in a church where the Lord's Supper was offered ONLY to the local church members. During times of observance vistors were asked to leave the church! I think my home church has moderated a bit since then.

I've seen Southern Baptist churches offer the Lord's Supper to EVERYONE in attendance, regardless of being baptized or professing faith in Christ or any other standard. Scary.

I think for the most part Southern Baptist churches these days offer the Lord's Supper to all who profess faith in Christ, whether baptized or not (but I think most of the churches make an assumption, whether right or wrong, that profession includes baptism....bad assumption)....but don't hold me to that!

Obviously there is a very wide range of practices among Baptists in general and Southern Baptists in particular.

 

[Steve Owen]

Todd wrote:-

I am particularly amazed that churches will require some sort of confession of faith (i.e. they at least do expect that partakers of the Supper be professing Christians) but are in such a rush to get them to the table, that they do not require that they be Baptized first.

Perhaps I haven't been as clear as I should have been. There is clearly something strange going on when someone professes faith in Christ and yet is unwilling to follow His command to be baptized. It should not be the case that someone can receive the Lord's Supper week after week when they have not been baptized.

However, you must realise that in Baptist understanding, infant baptism is no baptism at all. Someone who has been 'christened' as an infant is no different to somebody who has never been baptized. Yet we do not wish to prevent visitors to the church, who may be evangelical Anglicans and true believers, to be excluded from the Lord's Table over a difference of understanding over ordinances. As far as we are concerned, everyone who has repented of his sins and trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ is entitled to come to His table.

But if, say, the son or daughter of a church member professed faith in Christ and wanted to partake of the Lord's Supper, we would naturally expect him to be baptized, and would want to know the reason why if he didn't want to be.

Martin

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by toddpedlar
Thanks for your comments, all.

I'm truly I'm intrigued by Bunyan's stance on this. Unfortunately his are a set of works I don't have - but perhaps I can find the relevant material online.

CCEL.org is a great place to go to find texts in multiple formats:

http://www.ccel.org/b/bunyan/

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Further, and more fundamentally, the Supper is not the sign of initiation into the covenant of grace, baptism is. It's this confusion of initiation and renewal that is at the heart of paedocommunion. That's why I say that the paedocommunionists are really crypto-Baptists with a medieval pretense!

Can somebody explain this to me a little more. Everything he writes resonates but:

1. What does he mean that paedocommunionists are crytpo-Baptists?
2. What is the medievel pretense?

I'm trying to get better read but I'm missing it here. If Dr. Clark sees this and has time to respond it would be great but anybody who understands it is welcome to help me out here.