Poll for Baptists only--Is Baptism Prerequisite to the Lord's Supper?

[Pilgrim]

Although many Baptists have disagreed through the years, most Baptist statements of faith or confessions that have addressed the issue have taught that baptism is prerequisite to the Lord's Supper, thus precluding open communion (i.e. those not immersed may not partake in the Lord's Supper.) Here are a couple of examples:


Appendix to the 1646 Confession of Faith by Benjamin Cox:

Though a believer’s right to the use of the Lord’s Supper doth immediately flow from Jesus Christ apprehended and received by faith, yet in as much as all things ought to be done not only decently, but also in order, 1 Cor.14:40; and the Word holds forth this order, that disciples should be baptized, Matt.28:19; Acts 2:38, and then be taught to observe all things (that is to say. all other things) that Christ commanded the Apostles, Matt.28:20, and accordingly the Apostles first baptized disciples, and then admitted them to the use of the Supper, Acts 2:41, 42; we therefore do not admit any in the use of the Supper, nor communicate with any in the use of this ordinance, but disciples having once been Scripturally baptized, less we should have fellowship with them in their doing contrary to order.

Abstract of Principles–Adopted at the founding of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1858:

XV. Baptism.
Baptism is an ordinance of the Lord Jesus, obligatory upon every believer, wherein he is immersed in water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, as a sign of his fellowship with the death and resurrection of Christ, of remission of sins, and of his giving himself up to God, to live and walk in newness of life. It is prerequisite to church fellowship, and to participation in the Lord’s Supper.

More statements on this can be found here.

What say ye about this? Please give your reasons for your position as well.

 

[KMK]

If someone has met the requirements for the LS, why haven't they been baptized? What is the delay? The fact that someone would desire the LS but refuse baptism has red flags all over it.

-----Added 2/25/2009 at 12:25:55 EST-----

BTW, who are the many Baptists who have disagreed about this?

 

[brymaes]

I believe that Bunyan did not require baptism before someone would partake of the Supper.

 

[LawrenceU]

I'd have to agree whole heartedly with Ken. Every time I've run across it there were serious spiritual issues afoot.

 

[Dr. Bob Gonzales]

I didn't respond to the poll because the question lacked specificity. On the one hand. I believe baptism is a prerequisite for membership in the new covenant community and, therefore, a prerequisite for communion. On the other hand, I believe communion or the Lord's Table should be open to all baptized persons who are members in good standing of Bible-believing churches and who are able to discern properly the significance of the meal. Practically, that means I would open the table to Paedobaptists since they affirm the necessity of baptism for entrance into the covenant community and are in fact members of true gospel churches.

Your servant,

 

[Pergamum]

I also did not respond to the poll.

The Lord's Supper is for those that are the Lord's.

If someone came to the Lord's Suppper who was saved but not baptized, they might partake...but I would be curious as to why they would be saved but not yet baptized.


The normal pattern from the NT is that one is saved, then baptized and then joins the weekly fellowship of the church, which included partaking of the Supper.

A thing can be irregular, however, without being invalid and so I suppose deviations from the NT might be allowable.

 

[Mayflower]

If someone came to the Lord's Suppper who was saved but not baptized, they might partake...but I would be curious as to why they would be saved but not yet baptized.

Question : show me one vers in the Word of God, were non baptized believers were partaking the Lords supper ?
Answer : None, so who gives us the right and authority to go outside the order that God has given in His Word, namely conversion, baptism, church membership and Lords supper.

 

[rescuedbyLove]

I also did not respond to the poll.

The Lord's Supper is for those that are the Lord's.

If someone came to the Lord's Suppper who was saved but not baptized, they might partake...but I would be curious as to why they would be saved but not yet baptized.


The normal pattern from the NT is that one is saved, then baptized and then joins the weekly fellowship of the church, which included partaking of the Supper.

A thing can be irregular, however, without being invalid and so I suppose deviations from the NT might be allowable.

My mom was saved in November (of 2007), and came to our church and talked to our pastor. He scheduled her to be baptized (and to sign the church covenant) in January. She partook of the Lord's Supper once (maybe twice) before being baptized and becoming an official member of the congregation. She knew that the Lord had already made her part of the church, the body of Christ.

 

[Hippo]

Not being a Baptist I have not voted but many of the comments seem to equate paedobaptism with having:

red flags all over it.

This is quite an extreme position.

 

[Rangerus]

From the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. (Current Southern Baptist Confession of Faith)

VII. Baptism and the Lord's Supper

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.

The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.

Matthew 3:13-17; 26:26-30; 28:19-20; Mark 1:9-11; 14:22-26; Luke 3:21-22; 22:19-20; John 3:23; Acts 2:41-42; 8:35-39; 16:30-33; 20:7; Romans 6:3-5; 1 Corinthians 10:16,21; 11:23-29; Colossians 2:12.

 

[Pergamum]

If someone came to the Lord's Suppper who was saved but not baptized, they might partake...but I would be curious as to why they would be saved but not yet baptized.

Question : show me one vers in the Word of God, were non baptized believers were partaking the Lords supper ?
Answer : None, so who gives us the right and authority to go outside the order that God has given in His Word, namely conversion, baptism, church membership and Lords supper.

In the NT we see believers partaking of the Lord's Supper. We are not told whether or not they are baptized or not, but it is fair to assume that they were.


God has not given us a normative order in the NT, but the example seems to lead us to a sequence of belief, baptism, uniting with a body, and then enjoying the fellowship of that body, which included partaking of the Supper.


Again, I have already mentioned such a thing as "irregular" but is it irregular enough to bar a Christian from the Lord's Table?

 

[KMK]

Not being a Baptist I have not voted but many of the comments seem to equate paedobaptism with having:

red flags all over it.

This is quite an extreme position.

Can you give us an example where someone might, in good conscience, refuse baptism yet desire the LS?

 

[Pergamum]

One possible scenario:

A believer is saved and it is evident that they are saved. It is frozen on the ground or they are in the desert. They meet soon afterwards as a church and there is no time for this new believer to be baptized and there is not water enough at this particular service to baptize the new believer. They agree to worship, partake of the Lord's Supper and then go to one of the parishioner's houses to baptise the new believer after the service.

This is one scenario where I would administer the Lord's Supper to an unbaptized believer. It is irregular, but I would hate to forbid a child of God to partake in what belongs to the children of God.

 

[KMK]

One possible scenario:

A believer is saved and it is evident that they are saved. It is frozen on the ground or they are in the desert. They meet soon afterwards as a church and there is no time for this new believer to be baptized and there is not water enough at this particular service to baptize the new believer. They agree to worship, partake of the Lord's Supper and then go to one of the parishioner's houses to baptise the new believer after the service.

This is one scenario where I would administer the Lord's Supper to an unbaptized believer. It is irregular, but I would hate to forbid a child of God to partake in what belongs to the children of God.

I would not disagree with you. But this would be an exception and not the rule. My question is, are there any justifiable grounds for a believer to refuse baptism yet desire the LS? It has been my experience that people who profess Christ yet refuse baptism have serious issues that need to be dealt with.

 

[Pergamum]

KMK:

Yes, I agree.

Refusing baptism I believe would be grounds to consider one not saved or else to administer church discipline for refusing Christ's explicit commands.

However, merely getting things out of order due to unforeseen circumstances is less severe and I would want the new believer to partake as this is a great blessing to their soul.

 

[christiana]

All of these rules, laws, traditions are simply that. If a believer is in the pew and desiring of the Lord's Supper when it is passed who is going to deny them? It is between their heart and the Lord. If upon listening to the scripture being read about taking the Lord's Supper unworthily then the responsibility is on them alone to be certain their heart is ready to partake.

 

[Mayflower]

All of these rules, laws, traditions are simply that. If a believer is in the pew and desiring of the Lord's Supper when it is passed who is going to deny them? It is between their heart and the Lord. If upon listening to the scripture being read about taking the Lord's Supper unworthily then the responsibility is on them alone to be certain their heart is ready to partake.

It is not only a individual matter like "It is between their heart and the Lord", because it is church ordinance, so what about the fact that someone is under the discipline of a local church or you have no idea if that person is a christian at all ? With the so callled open communion, were you allowed non baptized person to jion the supper, you divided something which belongs toghter in it's order namely baptism and the supper, which has no biblical support.

 

[christiana]

All of these rules, laws, traditions are simply that. If a believer is in the pew and desiring of the Lord's Supper when it is passed who is going to deny them? It is between their heart and the Lord. If upon listening to the scripture being read about taking the Lord's Supper unworthily then the responsibility is on them alone to be certain their heart is ready to partake.

It is not only a individual matter like "It is between their heart and the Lord", because it is church ordinance, so what about the fact that someone is under the discipline of a local church or you have no idea if that person is a christian at all ? With the so callled open communion, were you allowed non baptized person to jion the supper, you divided something which belongs toghter in it's order namely baptism and the supper, which has no biblical support.

I can see how that could present a dilemma! How is this appropriately dealt with? In open communion there is no screening that I am aware of? I do believe it it left up to the individual and his heart. Who would be worthy to decide that someone else should not be allowed the Lord's Supper! That would be a grave responsibility to take upon oneself, would it not?

 

[Wannabee]

Ralph, you accuse no biblical support for negatives, but offer no positive commands. The burden is on the one who imposes, not on one who doesn't. If Scripture tells us to do something, then we do it. If it implies it, then we work through it. If it doesn't address it then we leave it to personal conscience.

I picked "no."

First, I would not bar a paedo baptist from the table, but do not consider them baptized unless they were baptized as believers. Their conscience is bound before God, and I consider them beloved brethren in Christ.

Second, as has been stated, I consider it a matter of conscience.

Third, it is entirely possible for someone to be saved and have a credible testimony and, a) never have been taught properly on baptism or, b) be a new believer who has not yet had an opportunity to be baptized.

Fourth, if someone is a member of our church they must be baptized first, so it is not a disciplinary issue for us. But, if someone professed Christ and refused baptism I would strongly caution them against partaking. It might even come to the point that we would refuse them, but that's a bridge I hope to never cross.

 

[LawrenceU]

Fourth, if someone is a member of our church they must be baptized first, so it is not a disciplinary issue for us. But, if someone professed Christ and refused baptism I would strongly caution them against partaking. It might even come to the point that we would refuse them, but that's a bridge I hope to never cross.

That is the situation that I assumed we were discussing. I can see that I read into the intent of the OP.

 

[puritanpilgrim]

Is the LS required for baptism? This could go in circles.

 

[Kim G]

it is entirely possible for someone to be saved and have a credible testimony and, a) never have been taught properly on baptism or, b) be a new believer who has not yet had an opportunity to be baptized.

I believe this would be a valid exception. At the churches I grew up in (where baptism was viewed just as a testimony that you have trusted Christ), there was no rush to fill up the baptismal pool when someone wanted to be baptised. Believers would be put off for weeks, sometimes months, while the church waited for more people to desire baptism so they could be dunked at the same time. The believers desired baptism, but were denied it until the church could be bothered to fill up the tank. I don't think they should be kept from the Lord's Supper.

 

[toddpedlar]

Not being a Baptist I have not voted but many of the comments seem to equate paedobaptism with having:

red flags all over it.

This is quite an extreme position.

I'm very confused by your comment, Mike. I don't see anyone questioning paedobaptism in this thread, and I certainly can't make heads or tails of your reference to Ken's comment. The 'red flags' was in reference to those who, in Baptistic circles, would not want to be (or feel 'ready to be') baptized upon their own conversion but would want to take the Lord's Supper. That kind of a position, and maintaining that position by the church leadership, would have red flags all over it.

BTW as a child in a baptist church growing up, I took the Lord's supper, with the approval of the deacons, for several years without being baptized, because the position was that baptism was a 'real commitment' and the Lord's Table was in some ways preparatory and something that if you believed you could rightly take (but then why not be baptized, as Ken has already asked). That position seems quite common among baptist (non reformed) folks that I know, and was certainly the position of my first church growing up.

 

[Pilgrim]

I believe that Bunyan did not require baptism before someone would partake of the Supper.

That is true, but he was definitely the exception in his day and was opposed by those who were responsible for the 1st and 2nd London Confessions (Kiffin, Keach, etc.) Bunyan not only practiced open communion but open membership as well.

I haven't studied this exhaustively by any means, but open communion among Baptists apparently became prevalent among British Baptists in the 19th Century and in the USA to varying degrees in the 20th, with it apparently becoming much more prevalent among Southern Baptists in the post WW II era.

-----Added 2/25/2009 at 10:22:44 EST-----

I didn't respond to the poll because the question lacked specificity. On the one hand. I believe baptism is a prerequisite for membership in the new covenant community and, therefore, a prerequisite for communion. On the other hand, I believe communion or the Lord's Table should be open to all baptized persons who are members in good standing of Bible-believing churches and who are able to discern properly the significance of the meal. Practically, that means I would open the table to Paedobaptists since they affirm the necessity of baptism for entrance into the covenant community and are in fact members of true gospel churches.

Your servant,

The reference to open communion refers to the practice of some of inviting all to the table based solely on their profession of faith, regardless of whether they have been baptized or not. For example, some will allow the unimmersed Presbyterian, Anglican or Methodist to partake, etc.

Dr. Bob, yours is the kind of practice that I want to unpack here. You wrote "communion or the Lord's Table should be open to all baptized persons who are members in good standing of Bible-believing churches and who are able to discern properly the significance of the meal." Later you write that you open the table to paedos who are able to discern rightly. But unless we concede the Presbyterian's point that "Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person," how can such individuals be regarded as "baptized persons," assuming they have not been immersed?

Presbyterians do see baptism as prerequisite to the Lord's Supper, but their view of the proper mode and subjects of baptism of course is far different from what Baptists believe. Or else what was the point of that heated baptism debate we had here last summer.

 

[Wannabee]

it is entirely possible for someone to be saved and have a credible testimony and, a) never have been taught properly on baptism or, b) be a new believer who has not yet had an opportunity to be baptized.

I believe this would be a valid exception. At the churches I grew up in (where baptism was viewed just as a testimony that you have trusted Christ), there was no rush to fill up the baptismal pool when someone wanted to be baptised. Believers would be put off for weeks, sometimes months, while the church waited for more people to desire baptism so they could be dunked at the same time. The believers desired baptism, but were denied it until the church could be bothered to fill up the tank. I don't think they should be kept from the Lord's Supper.

We have an even bigger problem - about 3 feet of ice. Our church doesn't own a baptismal. I suppose we could use someone's tub, or the pool at the Y. Perhaps we could use one in another church. Or, we could wait until summer and use a local river or Lake Michigan. There's plenty of water around here, but it's tough to get through the ice in the winter, not to mention cold.

 

[JM]

A few comments from John Dagg:

Argument 1.--The Lord's supper, when instituted by Christ, was given to persons who had never received Christian baptism, and therefore baptism cannot be a prerequisite.

The first supper was administered to the apostles. Some of these had been baptized by John; and, since the disciples made by Jesus in his personal ministry, were also baptized, we are warranted to conclude, that all the apostles had been baptized. If it be denied that John's baptism, and the baptism administered under the immediate direction of Christ during his personal ministry were Christian baptism, we call for proof. Until the distinction is established, the argument has no foundation.

But there is another way in which the argument may be met. We have every certainty, which the nature of the case admits, that the apostles were not baptized after the institution of the Lord's supper. From this time to the ensuing Pentecost, when they entered fully on the work assigned them, their history is so given as to exclude all probability that they were baptized in this interval; and, if they were qualified to enter fully on their work, without another baptism, another baptism was unnecessary; and was therefore never afterwards received. Mr. Hall, the ablest advocate of open communion, says: "My deliberate opinion is, that, in the Christian sense of the term, they were not baptized at all."(24) When Paul was made an apostle, before he entered on his work he was commanded to be baptized. From some cause, the other apostles were not under this obligation. We account for the difference, by the supposition, that they had already received what was substantially the same as the baptism administered to Paul. But, if we are mistaken on this point, it is still true that the eleven apostles were not under obligation to receive any other baptism; and their case, therefore, differed radically from that of persons who are under obligation to be baptized, and are living in neglect of this duty. The latter may be required, and ought to be required, to profess Christ according to his commandment, before they are admitted to church-membership and communion; but the eleven apostles,es, from some cause, whatever it may have been, were under no such obligation. The cases are not parallel; and, therefore, the argument fails.

Argument 2.--The argument for strict communion, from the position of baptism in the commission, proves too much. If it proves that we ought not to teach the unbaptized to commune at the Lord's table, it proves also that we ought not to teach them the moral precepts of Christ included in the words, "all things whatsoever I have commanded you."

The apostles were commanded to preach the gospel to every creature. In executing their commission, it became their duty to instruct the ignorant and them that were out of the way. They adapted their instructions to every man's character and circumstances To the impenitent, they said: "Repent, and be baptized." To the unbaptized disciple, they said: "Why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized." The baptized disciple they taught, according to therequirement in the commission, to observe all things whatsoever Christ had commanded. The- impenitent were not to be taught to observe all things which Christ had commanded. The advocates of open communion deny that they have a right either to baptism, or the Lord's supper; but why? The same moral precepts which are to be taught to the baptized disciple, may be taught to the impenitent. We may, therefore, retort, that if they exclude the impenitent from baptism and the Lord's supper, their mode of reasoning will prove too much, and will equally exclude them from instruction in the moral precepts of Christ. If it be just to argue from the order prescribed in the commission, that baptism belongs to those only who have been made disciples; that order equally proves, that the baptized only ought to be taught to observe all things that Christ had commanded. Some things that Christ commanded might be taught to the unbaptized, and to the impenitent; but the full observance of all Christ's commands, was to be enjoined on the baptized disciples. Had the commission read, "Make disciples of all nations, and teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you," baptism and the supper would have been included together among the things commanded, and no inference could have been drawn from the commission as to the proper order in which they should be observed. But the separation of baptism from all the other things which Christ had commanded, gives it a peculiar relation to the other things enjoined in the commission; and the order in which it is introduced cannot but signify the proper order for our obedience.​

Other arguments:

Argument 3.--The fact that, in the primitive times, none but baptized persons were admitted to the Lord's table, is not a rule to us, whose circumstances are widely different. Then, no converted person mistook his obligation to be baptized. Had he refused baptism, the refusal would have proved him not to be a disciple; and now nothing ought to exclude from communion, but that which disproves discipleship.

Argument 4.--The supper commemorates the death of Christ: baptism represents his burial and resurrection. The order of the things signified is the reverse of that in which they are observed. Hence, the order of observance ought not to be considered necessary.

Argument 5.--Communion at the Lord's table is a token of brotherly love. To
refuse it to any true disciple of Christ, is contrary to the spirit of brotherly
love, and to the command of Christ which enjoined it.

Argument 6.--A particular church differs from the church universal, only as a
part differs from the whole; and, since Pedobaptist Christians are parts of the true church, they ought to be admitted to membership and communion in the particular churches.

Argument 7.--To exclude a Pedobaptist brother from communion, is substantially to inflict on him the punishment of excommunication, the punishment inflicted on atrocious offenders. Such is not the proper treatment
of a fellow disciple, whose error of judgment the Lord graciously pardons.

Argument 7.--To reject from communion a Pedobaptist brother whom God
receives, is to violate the law of toleration laid down in Romans xiv. 1-3.

Argument 10.--The communion table is the Lord's; and to exclude from it any of the Lord's people, the children of his family, is an offence against the whole Christian community.​

Founders Ministries | Manual of Church Order - Ch. 5

 

[Pilgrim]

What this thread is about is what has been termed close communion. I realize that people from different backgrounds and perhaps geographic regions have different definitions of open/close/closed communion.

These are the definitions I work with, and these are pretty well accepted in most Baptist circles with which I am familiar:

1. Open communion.

Anyone professing Christ is free to come to the table, whether they've been baptized or not, and sometimes without regard to church membership or lack thereof. My understanding is that most if not all independent Bible churches would hold to this view and that many of them would not require immersion as a condition of membership either. But my exposure to such churches is limited and I may be off base here or painting with too broad a brush. I know of a great many Southern Baptist churches today that would fit into this category as well. Many Calvinistic Baptists today seem to be of this opinion as well, apparently out of a desire to demonstrate their unity with Presbyterians, etc.

Many, though not all, holding to this position however require baptism as a condition for church membership.

2. Closed communion.

Only members of that particular congregation may come to the table, or perhaps that particular denomination or association.

3. Close communion.

A more nebulous category that basically includes everything else in between. This would include churches like the one to which I currently belong which restricts communion to baptized (immersed) believers, which it seems to me is at a minimum what a baptistic church would have to do to be in conformity with the idea that (water) baptism is prerequisite to the Lord's Supper. Others will restrict the table to professing believers who are members of churches of "like faith and order" (or practice). See the following for an expression of that view and one that also defines open
communion as I have above:
Why Close Communion And Not Open Communion - By O. L. Hailey


I have never seen an argument for open communion that didn't appear to me to be based on emotion and/or what appears to be a desire in my opinion to demonstrate unity at the expense of truth (e.g. the definition of a baptized believer.) I've never seen one based on the Scriptures, although I'm soliciting arguments now. It may well be that I have missed something here.

A full blown open membership position such as Bunyan's, the 19th century English Baptist Robert Hall's or the proposal made by John Piper a few years ago would seem to be more consistent than open communion/restricted membership. The latter was Spurgeon's practice, and he took some heat from the Strict Baptists of his day over his practice. But I have seen several statements from Spurgeon later in his ministry that indicate that if he had it to do over again and was starting a new church, that he would have practiced close communion as the Southern Baptists of his day did.

This is basically the issue that would keep me Southern Baptist since most independent churches and other alternatives with which I am familiar practice open communion or would at least allow unbaptized paedo brethren of like mind on soteriology to come to the table. I really have no idea what percentage of SBC churches practice open communion. But even if it is the majority today, the Southern Baptist confessions clearly teach close communion, as does every English Baptist confession that addresses the issue. The 1689 does not appear to address this question directly, but English Particular Baptist confessions before (1st LBCF) and since (Gill) do.

 

[JM]

The Strict Baptist Historical Society : Who are the Strict Baptists?

The term Strict refers to their practice of 'restricted communion'. Many evangelical churches in the West invite 'all who love the Lord Jesus Christ' to take the bread and wine at the Lord's Table. Strict Baptists, like many other groups of Baptist churches elsewhere in the world, believe that this privilege should be offered only to those who have been baptised by immersion as believers. (This was the practice of most Baptist churches in Britain during the 17th and 18th centuries.) Some go further and invite only those belonging to Baptist churches, or to churches holding the same understanding of Christian faith and church order, or only those belonging to that particular local church.

Restricting communion in this way does not imply that those who are not admitted are not Christians; rather, it follows from Strict Baptist beliefs about the church, baptism and the Lord's Supper. Strict Baptists see baptism as a rite by which believers testify to their faith in Christ, and associate it with church membership. The Lord's Supper is for those who have joined the church in this way.​

Strict and Particular Baptists [www.the-faith.org.uk]

They are known as Strict & Particular Baptists because they believe that the Lord's Supper is a Divine Ordinance which is celebrated within a Congregation comprised of saved, immersed, believers seeking to live, and serve God, in a manner that is set out in the New Testament. The term 'Strict' may not always be applied but is normally implied. That is, these brethren are often known as Particular Baptists. See Articles of Faith, Para. 15,​

 

[Hippo]

Not being a Baptist I have not voted but many of the comments seem to equate paedobaptism with having:

red flags all over it.

This is quite an extreme position.

Can you give us an example where someone might, in good conscience, refuse baptism yet desire the LS?

Because they believe that they have already been baptised.

-----Added 2/25/2009 at 01:43:14 EST-----

Not being a Baptist I have not voted but many of the comments seem to equate paedobaptism with having:

red flags all over it.

This is quite an extreme position.

I'm very confused by your comment, Mike. I don't see anyone questioning paedobaptism in this thread, and I certainly can't make heads or tails of your reference to Ken's comment. The 'red flags' was in reference to those who, in Baptistic circles, would not want to be (or feel 'ready to be') baptized upon their own conversion but would want to take the Lord's Supper. That kind of a position, and maintaining that position by the church leadership, would have red flags all over it.

BTW as a child in a baptist church growing up, I took the Lord's supper, with the approval of the deacons, for several years without being baptized, because the position was that baptism was a 'real commitment' and the Lord's Table was in some ways preparatory and something that if you believed you could rightly take (but then why not be baptized, as Ken has already asked). That position seems quite common among baptist (non reformed) folks that I know, and was certainly the position of my first church growing up.

There is no obvious distinction between paedo's and baptists on whether baptism is a prerequisite for the Lords Supper apart from a disagreement over what constitutes baptism. This poll is stated to be for baptists only therefore it is logical (and indeed necessary) to consider the position of those baptised by sprinkling when adressing the poll.

In post 24 Chris repeats his position (which is a matter of record, and as he points out is the historic confessional baptist position) that

unless we concede the Presbyterian's point that "Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person," how can such individuals be regarded as "baptized persons," assuming they have not been immersed?

I therefore feel that my query was both relevant and reasonable. It is a real problem that we can often talk past each other in these debates, when a baptist says that someone is not baptised we cannot assume that he is not including those baptised by sprinkling, and indeed the form of this poll pretty much precludes such an assumption.

I think that it is possible that baptists may have been answering differnt questions in this poll, for instance your understanding of the poll appears to differ from Chris's

 

[KMK]

Not being a Baptist I have not voted but many of the comments seem to equate paedobaptism with having:



This is quite an extreme position.

Can you give us an example where someone might, in good conscience, refuse baptism yet desire the LS?

Because they believe that they have already been baptised.

-----Added 2/25/2009 at 01:43:14 EST-----

I'm very confused by your comment, Mike. I don't see anyone questioning paedobaptism in this thread, and I certainly can't make heads or tails of your reference to Ken's comment. The 'red flags' was in reference to those who, in Baptistic circles, would not want to be (or feel 'ready to be') baptized upon their own conversion but would want to take the Lord's Supper. That kind of a position, and maintaining that position by the church leadership, would have red flags all over it.

BTW as a child in a baptist church growing up, I took the Lord's supper, with the approval of the deacons, for several years without being baptized, because the position was that baptism was a 'real commitment' and the Lord's Table was in some ways preparatory and something that if you believed you could rightly take (but then why not be baptized, as Ken has already asked). That position seems quite common among baptist (non reformed) folks that I know, and was certainly the position of my first church growing up.

There is no obvious distinction between paedo's and baptists on whether baptism is a prerequisite for the Lords Supper apart from a disagreement over what constitutes baptism. This poll is stated to be for baptists only therefore it is logical (and indeed necessary) to consider the position of those baptised by sprinkling when adressing the poll.

In post 24 Chris repeats his position (which is a matter of record, and as he points out is the historic confessional baptist position) that

unless we concede the Presbyterian's point that "Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person," how can such individuals be regarded as "baptized persons," assuming they have not been immersed?

I therefore feel that my query was both relevant and reasonable. It is a real problem that we can often talk past each other in these debates, when a baptist says that someone is not baptised we cannot assume that he is not including those baptised by sprinkling, and indeed the form of this poll pretty much precludes such an assumption.

????