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

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


  • Total voters
    31
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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 :judge: 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.

-----Added 2/25/2009 at 02:33:47 EST-----

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.

There is a lot of confusion on this issue today, and I've found that when "open communion" is mentioned people have widely divergent ideas about what it is.

But it seems to me that the language found in Baptist confessions about "baptism being prerequisite to the Lord's Supper" not only addressed what you posted about above about those refusing baptism but also was intended to restrict the Lord's Supper to baptized (i.e. immersed) professing believers only.

-----Added 2/25/2009 at 02:40:08 EST-----

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?

From my point of view at least, how the table is "fenced" has more to do with enforcement of whatever restrictions the church may place on participation in the Lord's Supper than with their particular view of open/close/closed communion.

Personally I would favor a verbal warning that sets forth the congregation's practice (similar to how it is done in the OPC) rather than the leaders or elders attempting to examine people individually in order to approve them. The latter method in my opinion is largely unworkable if you ever expect to have many visitors.
 
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.
I wondered what was going on myself. Sort of miss that Mod status sometimes, huh?

This is probably the first time. I had put "Baptist Only" in the title and on the poll as well because I remembered previous PB polls on the validity of Roman Catholic baptism being skewed by Baptists voting.
 
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?

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".
 
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?

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".

For the record, the "red flag" suggestion was KMK's, not mine. As he has noted, he didn't even have paedos in mind when he made the statement, but rather an example in which baptism is put off for what appear to be illegitimate reasons.

I think this thread fits in this forum. I didn't think to put it in the Credo Answers forum since the question goes beyond the issue of the subjects and mode of baptism and is a broader question related to church order.

However, maybe Credo Answers is the best place for this thread after all since that forum is restricted to credos, and because of the tendency some have of posting before reading. Of course I've never been guilty of that....:lol:
 
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. :)

Chris,

I'm aware of the debate and that there are good men on both sides. Those who restrict communion to professing believers to whom the sacrament of baptism has been properly administered (which means "immersion" for Baptists) have a certain logic on their side, I'll admit. On the other hand, I too base my position on certain logical inferences and deductions. According to the LBCF,
All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted (26.2).
Hence, entrance into the church, according to our Confession, requires (1) a credible profession of faith, and (2) the absence of any serious doctrinal positions (that would call into question their profession) and/or an ungodly lifestyle. Moreover, the Confession presents communion as a church ordinance and something in which all members of true may and should participate (30.1) "except ignorant and ungodly persons" (30:8).

So here's my syllogism:

Major premise: True churches consist of individuals who make a credible profession of faith and whose beliefs or conduct do not undermine that profession.
Minor premise #1: The improper administration of baptism is not necessarily a belief or practice that undermines one's profession of faith. Hence, such persons who in their conscience believe that baptism may (in the case of children of believing parents) be administered prior to a profession of faith and that baptism may be represented by sprinkling or pouring should not be precluded from membership in true churches.
Minor premise #2: Those who profess faith in the gospel and are members in good standing of true churches may and ought to partake of the Lord's Table.
Conclusion: I, as the pastor of a true church, (1) should not forbid professing believers who had been baptized improperly but whose conscience does not yet convict them of this error from entering into church membership (since the error does not undermine the credibility of their faith or conduct), and (2) I should not withhold from any member in good standing of my church the elements of he Lord's Table since they are genuine disciples of the Lord for whom Christ shed his blood.

So, I would allow a man or woman join my church who has a credible profession of faith despite the fact that his or her view of baptism is incorrect. I would grant such believers all the privileges of church membership with two exceptions: (1) voting on any doctrinal amendments related to baptism (or church government) and (2) occupying a leading/teaching office in the church (i.e., elder/pastor).

Your servant,
 
No time for long answers now. Off the top of my head . . .

During my years pastoring Baptist churches, I ALWAYS opened the table to BAPTIZED Christians in good standing in a Christian church. I would typically call baptism the "first act of obedience" to our Lord's commands. Frankly, however, since at least one of my congregations had five hundred people in attendance on a Communion Sunday, I cannot be sure that some of the people electing to participate may NOT have been baptized prior to receiving the Lord's Supper. Specifically, when it was brought to my attention, I requested parents to refrain from permitting their children to participate until they had made a profession of faith and been baptized.

Any baptized person (by any means at any age) who had professed faith was welcome to the table.

Looking back, I'm not sure that our practice was completely congruent with our theology back then, even without my more recent questions regarding paedo baptism.
 
Last edited:
As far as I'm concerned, baptism is the first act of obedience for a new Christian. In my church I would administer baptism with all haste after a professed conversion, and thus make the new believer eligible to partake of the Lord's Supper.
 
I agree with Bill on this. I've never understood the waiting for ever to get a group of people together for a baptism service. You sure don't see that in Scripture. I have a friend in Siberia, the really cold part. They baptise in the dead of winter. They will use a tub, pool, tank, whatever they can find.

During the days of the Soviet Union one of our dearest family friends worked with churches behind the Iron Curtain. When someone would be born again they would so desire to be baptised that they would do anything to get it done. Somewhere my father has a picture of them baptising a man, his wife, and two of their children in a pond in which they had to break some serious ice in order to baptise them. We might see this as foolishness. They saw it as obedience.
 
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.
 
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.

This is what I would term "close" communion, category 3 above, and is basically the practice of our church as well. Some churches that practice "close communion" keep it closer than others, for example requiring membership in a church of "like faith and order," etc.
 
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
 
I'm sorry this is a bit off topic Chris, but a lot of postulations are being thrown about without doctrinal support. Apparently, by pointing out that we would wait until water thaws here we are disobedient. We have an example of what happened in Scripture. But we have many examples that don't fit today. The same theology that says "those who were saved in the NT were baptized right away" must then say, "those who were saved in the NT spoke in tongues right away" and "we must cast lots to determine church leadership." Perhaps we should use Phillip as the norm, and the one doing the baptism must vanish in order for it to be "official." Let's be careful not to impose our understanding on God's Word. Do we have one example in Scripture of baptism in cold climes? Does God dictate immediate baptism upon profession? Who's imposing upon whom?
 
Joe, I was not indicting you. You know me better than that. Your arguments in the post above are not sound. We have examples of 'normal' circumstance in each of those areas. Miraculous manifestation did not always occur at baptism in the NT. We also see church leadership appointed apart from the casting of lots. And, note that I did not say that the Christians who were behind the Iron Curtain felt compelled to be baptised because of textual argument. It was because of love for their Saviour. And, they didn't always chop the ice to get it done in the winter. I also noted that they would find enough water somewhere to get it done by using tubs, tanks, pools, etc. One group in used the public pool. It was covered. They would go their to 'swim' and use the Communists own pool to baptise. We could do the same (becoming resourceful).

I believe that baptism has been cheapened in too many churches. We have often turned it into a performance rather than the simple amazing act that it truly is. What has happened to it is similar to what has happened to the LS in most churches: in order to preserve its 'specialness' we rarely practice it. We relegate it to a special service, thereby depriving members of the continual blessing of communion on a weekly basis. How is that similar to baptism? If we 'store' up folks for baptism services rather than seeking to baptise them as soon as possible after conversion we really move it over into the ritual category rather than it being an 'organic' natural part of the obedience and growth if the Christian.
 
If waiting periods for baptism are so bad, why is it that very very early in church history the early church had catechumens and extensive waiting periods?

The national denomination I am working with here often baptises prematurely those that are very ignorant and can merely parrot a few correct anwers.
 
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

You ask some good questions that would probably best for the 'Credobatism Answers" Forum.

Basically, Baptists understand Rom 4 a little differently than Presbyterians. We believe baptism is a 'sign' but not a 'seal' of anything.

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.
 
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. :( ;)
 
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. :( ;)

Joe,

I didn't consider your posts to be a distraction from the purpose of the OP.

Actually, I've seen situations such as yours used to assert that immersion isn't the only valid mode. In Francis Schaeffer's little book on baptism, he states that immersionism destroys the "catholicity of the sacraments" since it is much more difficult to immerse in Siberia than it is in warmer climates.

-----Added 2/26/2009 at 06:20:40 EST-----

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,

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:

We 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.
The appendix can be found here: An Appendix

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top