Question only for the credo-baptist

[Mayflower]

Here a question only for the credo-baptist :

Last months iam studying more about the nature of the church, with the focused on baptism and communion from a baptist perspective.

I read the books like :
- The madison avenue lectures.

Soon i will be reading (orderd from Baptist bearer standard):
- Gardner : Church Communion as Practiced by the Baptists: Explained and Defended.
- Graves : Inter-Communion of Churches: Inconsistent, Unscriptural, and Productive of Evil.
- A. Booth : A Defense for the Baptists, in which they are Vindicated from the Imputation of laying an Unwarrantable Stress on the Ordinance of Baptism; and against the Charge of Bigotry in Refusing Communion at the Lord's Table to Paedobaptists.

My thoughts and question is, can we speak about a baptist church, only on the fact that a church baptize believers on the profession of faith (like most evangelicals are doing), or is being a baptist church more than only credo-baptism, that it also involved the teaching of the spiritual nature of the church like the relationship between baptism and communion for
believers ?

Iam asking this, because i myself iam from a evangelical church, were we baptized believers, but when there are guest people are from foreaxample presbyterian paedo-baptist churches, and they confess Christ, than our church allowed them for the communion table.

I understand their view, because the elders views these presbyterians as brothers, so why keeping them away from the table ?

Even though i understand this view, i think it is not accordingly the Word, because credo-baptism and communion must not be separated from eachother. Even though we consider the paedo-baptist as brothers, we
must not let this error from the church history have an influences in the practise of the local church.

Because the local church is a expresssion of the spiritual body, were the baptism and communion are given for the believers. So how can we than allowed non-baptize to take communion, if you take the view that the local church has to be formed accordingly the nature as we see in Acts and the letters of Paul, why should let the error of church history break the unity of baptism of communion ?

I read many from other baptist churches, that they allowed non-baptized persons to take commmunion, think about Bunyan, if iam right also Spurgeon and now John Piper, while historically the baptist churches only allowed only (credo)baptized believers to partake communion.

So can we still say that these are baptist churches, were this import practise of baptism and communion is divided in the local church, or is better to say that these are evangelical churches with a baptistic teaching and practise ?

So, what do you think ?

 

[Iconoclast]

open/closed communion?

If you are asking about the Lord's supper,some churches practice what is called closed communion.
They will only serve communion to their own members. I have visited some baptist churches that asked us to just observe the supper as they did not have any direct oversight of us as non members.
Other churches read the warning passages in 1 Cor 11, then leave it up to the visitor to examine himself.
Is this what you were asking?

 

[Pilgrim]

What Ralph is asking about is the common practice today in baptistic churches to admit to the Lord's Supper (and in some cases church membership) those who were either baptized as an infant or who were not immersed if baptized later in life) to the Lord's Supper if not church membership. Typically I've found that many Baptist churches will practice what amounts to open communion but reserve church membership to those who have been immersed, and more rarely to those who have been immersed in a church of like faith and practice. Some "Bible" and other evangelical churches do not see mode and timing of baptism as an issue for church membership.

The example he gave was of an evangelical church that apparently takes the Bunyan view that immersion is not required for membership even though they are antipaedo.

To answer your question, Ralph, right or wrong the churches that do as you describe are best thought of as broadly evangelical rather than Baptist since as you have noted they are acting contrary to historic baptist practice.