Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It appears I misunderstood the question from the beginning. I assumed the question was concerned about those who profess but refuse baptism. It has been my experience that pastors need to deal with the reasons behind their refusal and not just ignore the problem and go on our merry way and act like nothing is wrong.
I agree with Pastor Joe in that I would not necessarily withhold the LS from a paedo.
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?
Of course, I relinquished my vast powers of dictatorship on the PuritanBoard when I stepped aside as moderator several months ago. So I can't just drop the hammer and post a moderator note here.
But please note that the poll is for Baptists Only. I am trying to have an "intramural" discussion here among those who believe the only valid baptism is that of professing believers only and that the only valid "mode" is by immersion.
One person is commenting in this thread who is clearly not a Baptist. Another member voted in the poll who made clear his abandonment of Baptist principles not long ago. However, I don't have a problem with Todd's interaction since he was merely relating what he has witnessed in Baptist churches nor with Bryan's since he was simply stating Bunyan's practice.
If non Baptists want to start a thread about how mean or sectarian Baptists are, then please do so but that's not the purpose of this thread and I respectfully ask that this thread be kept free from those discussions.
I wondered what was going on myself. Sort of miss that Mod status sometimes, huh?Of course, I relinquished my vast powers of dictatorship on the PuritanBoard when I stepped aside as moderator several months ago. So I can't just drop the hammer and post a moderator note here.
But please note that the poll is for Baptists Only. I am trying to have an "intramural" discussion here among those who believe the only valid baptism is that of professing believers only and that the only valid "mode" is by immersion.
One person is commenting in this thread who is clearly not a Baptist. Another member voted in the poll who made clear his abandonment of Baptist principles not long ago. However, I don't have a problem with Todd's interaction since he was merely relating what he has witnessed in Baptist churches nor with Bryan's since he was simply stating Bunyan's practice.
If non Baptists want to start a thread about how mean or sectarian Baptists are, then please do so but that's not the purpose of this thread and I respectfully ask that this thread be kept free from those discussions.
If non Baptists want to start a thread about how mean or sectarian Baptists are, then please do so but that's not the purpose of this thread and I respectfully ask that this thread be kept free from those discussions
Why not post it in the Credo Baptist only section then?If non Baptists want to start a thread about how mean or sectarian Baptists are, then please do so but that's not the purpose of this thread and I respectfully ask that this thread be kept free from those discussions
I never made any comment that even touched on sectarianism, merely queried your suggestion that your paedo brethren's views had "red flags all over it".
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,
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.
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.
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.
I think it's possible to have a modified closed communion. Here is the invitation and warning I give when I am presiding:
"The Lord's Table is open to all members and visitors who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ, have been scripturally baptized and, after examining themselves, have repented of any known sin. In addition, I implore those who are not believers in our Lord Jesus Christ, those who profess Christ, and are in open and defiant sin or under ongoing church discipline, not to partake of the table, but first be reconciled to Christ and then come and partake."
This manner of "closed" communion does not prohibit visitors from partaking of the table.
You could ask is baptism a prerequisite to be saved?
Is professing of faith a prerequisite to be saved?
The bible clearly states "they believed and where baptized", don't wait with baptism. It's like saying I'll marry you we'll live together but lets wait with the wedding.
Baptism it's a sign and a seal, you saying to the Lord "Lord I know I'm a child of you", lets seal it!!!
Baptism the sign and seal of believing / professingof faith and believing / professing of faith is a prerequisite for LS.
I'm not a baptist. I'm a believer, baptized and professing. I do belief in discipline which means shielding of the Lords table.
HWF
LBC 28:1 Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.
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.
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.
Chris,
Your definition of "open communion" needs, in my mind, more nuance, especially if you're going to characterize its basis as a flimsy kind of sentimentality or unprincipled ecumenicism. Some of us whom you would classify as holding to an open communion position require that those who partake of the Lord's Table (1) have made a credible profession of faith, (2) have been baptized [even if the timing and mode is incorrrect since such is not an error that undermines the credibility of the person's profession], (3) are members of a local church membership [exceptions may be granted for those in process of transfer], and (4) are not under disciplinary suspension or excommunication. Moreover, we attempt to offer biblical principles for our reasoning (see post #38 above).
One may dismiss our desire to maintain and demonstrate the unity of the faith and communion of saints (LBC 27) as a kind of sentimentalism, much like Barnabas's desire to give John-Mark a second chance is often characterized. Yet, Barnabas, I believe, was operating off the principle that God is "a God of second chances"--a principle beautifully exemplified in Jesus' restoration of Peter to a leading position among the apostles and in the church (I believe within the space of 40 days) after Peter's terrible three-fold denial. And in the end, Barnabas the optimist proved to be right about John-Mark, as he was right about Saul of Tarsus.
I share this not to argue dogmatically that my nuanced or qualified "open communion" is right and everyone else is wrong. I do think, however, that the issue is not as black and white as some Baptists would like it to be. That is, churches should consist of baptized persons. But if one takes the Belgic Confession's 2nd mark of a true church consistently, then he'd have to conclude that either Baptist churches are not true churches or Presbyterian churches are false churches or both are false churches. For this reason, I don't believe the Scriptures constrain me to make "the right administration of the sacraments" a sina qua non of a genuine Christian church.
Your servant,
Thanks Lawrence. I agree with what you're saying. Obviously I pushed the examples to make a point. However, your earlier statements made it sound like a matter of obedience, as though descriptive Scripture holds the same directive as prescriptive Scripture. As I noted in my post, we could us the Y. But, on the other hand, it is a special moment. Each person does it once, unlike the LS. Furthermore, as a matter of dealing with our prevalent easy believism and soft Gospel decisionism I would not be ready to baptize someone who came to me and said they were ready. It would take a time of confirmation in order to discern whether or not they understood the Gospel. Much of the problem is that most people divorce baptism from the Gospel, when in fact it is inherent in the Gospel. The Ethiopian eunuch knew that. But, that's probably for another thread. Thanks for your patience Chris. Apparently it's not just paedos who distract from the purpose of the OP.
Chris,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.
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.
Your definition of "open communion" needs, in my mind, more nuance, especially if you're going to characterize its basis as a flimsy kind of sentimentality or unprincipled ecumenicism. Some of us whom you would classify as holding to an open communion position require that those who partake of the Lord's Table (1) have made a credible profession of faith, (2) have been baptized [even if the timing and mode is incorrrect since such is not an error that undermines the credibility of the person's profession], (3) are members of a local church membership [exceptions may be granted for those in process of transfer], and (4) are not under disciplinary suspension or excommunication. Moreover, we attempt to offer biblical principles for our reasoning (see post #38 above).
One may dismiss our desire to maintain and demonstrate the unity of the faith and communion of saints (LBC 27) as a kind of sentimentalism, much like Barnabas's desire to give John-Mark a second chance is often characterized. Yet, Barnabas, I believe, was operating off the principle that God is "a God of second chances"--a principle beautifully exemplified in Jesus' restoration of Peter to a leading position among the apostles and in the church (I believe within the space of 40 days) after Peter's terrible three-fold denial. And in the end, Barnabas the optimist proved to be right about John-Mark, as he was right about Saul of Tarsus.
I share this not to argue dogmatically that my nuanced or qualified "open communion" is right and everyone else is wrong. I do think, however, that the issue is not as black and white as some Baptists would like it to be. That is, churches should consist of baptized persons. But if one takes the Belgic Confession's 2nd mark of a true church consistently, then he'd have to conclude that either Baptist churches are not true churches or Presbyterian churches are false churches or both are false churches. For this reason, I don't believe the Scriptures constrain me to make "the right administration of the sacraments" a sina qua non of a genuine Christian church.
Your servant,
Thank you for the admonition, brother. I was merely referring to arguments that I had heard in the past with that characterization, but I realize that it may have come across as a bit harsh.
I think the difference hinges on what baptism is. Open communionists often seem to have one standard for admittance to the Table and another when it comes to church membership, if baptism is considered a prerequisite at all. (It appears that in your case the baptism, even though not recognized by us as valid, is an indicator that the believer is not an out and out rebel on the issue, as KMK was alluding to in his early posts in the thread.)
Also, some, myself included, would not necessarily make church membership a requirement, considering that some assemblies today do not have formal membership.
When I was attending the OPC (prior to and in the process of joining) I did not partake in the Lord's Supper for approximately 10 months because I was not a member in good standing in an "evangelical church." This was because the assembly that I had previously attended did not have formal membership. I think membership is important, but don't currently see it as a prerequisite to being admitted to the table in such a circumstance. (I note your exception for those in process of transfer.)
And as you may know, there are some who subscribe to the Belgic Confession who do not consider Baptist churches to be true churches because we do not rightly administer the sacraments.
-----Added 2/26/2009 at 06:25:29 EST-----
Someone offlist pointed me to the 1677 2nd London Baptist Confession's Appendix, which makes clear why this issue was not addressed in that confession. There were many more churches involved in the 2nd Confession compared with the 1st, and they did not wish to exclude brethren over this issue:
The appendix can be found here: An AppendixWe are not insenible that as to the order of Gods house, and entire communion therein there are some things wherein we (as well as others) are not at a full accord among our selves, as for instance; the known principle, and state of the consciences of diverse of us, that have agreed in this Confession is such; that we cannot hold Church-communion, with any other then Baptized-believers, and Churches constituted of such; yet some others of us have a greater liberty and freedom in our spirits that way; and therefore we have purposely omitted the mention of things of that nature, that we might concurre, in giving this evidence of our agreement, both among our selves, and with other good Christians, in those important articles of the Christian Religion, mainly insisted on by us: and this notwithstanding we all esteem it our chief concern, both among our selves, and all others that in every place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours, and love him in sincerity, to endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit, in the bond of peace; and in order thereunto, to exercise all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love.
It appears that it is not often published in editions of the 1689, and I'm not sure at this point if it was published in 1689 or not. I understand that it is printed in the back of The Baptism of Disciples Alone.