Pensees: A Baptist Table?

Bob,

I don’t know that you’d need to bar those men physically since they’d be non-members of your church. You could explain your church’s practice and leave it to their consciences.

But on the bigger question, since you would understand that a person who has not been baptized successive to salvation is in continuing sin against God’s command to be baptized, wouldn’t affirming that person’s desire to participate in the Lord’s Supper be encouraging them to eat and drink unworthily?

P.S. Sproul’s still alive, right?

This is from the T4G Affirmations and Denials…

Article XIV

We affirm that the shape of Christian discipleship is congregational, and that God’s purpose is evident in faithful Gospel congregations, each displaying God’s glory in the marks of authentic ecclesiology.

We deny that any Christian can truly be a faithful disciple apart from the teaching, discipline, fellowship, and accountability of a congregation of fellow disciples, organized as a Gospel church. We further deny that the Lord’s Supper can faithfully be administered apart from the right practice of church discipline.

I wonder (perhaps Ben can answer this)- how does CHBC handle children taking communion, with their policy of not baptizing anyone until they reach young adulthood? Are they discouraged from participating until they follow the Lord in baptism?

Our practice is to explain at each observation of the Lord’s Supper that the table is open to all believing, baptized members of a local church that preaches the same gospel that is preached here.

Since our youngest member is 17 or 18, I don’t know how that issue would come up unless a member parent specifically permitted a child to participate in opposition to the stated practice. If that became known to the pastors, my guess is one of them would talk things through with the parent(s). Even if a child had been baptized at a younger age in another church before the family began attending CHBC, the child still wouldn’t be a member.

For some reason my qualifying statement about Sproul didn’t go up. He’s alive.

Frankly, we are still in discussion on this issue. You’ll notice that we contradict ourselves when we give three qualifications for baptism and then the attached note that actually says that c. is not necessarily required.

The distinction is between what we teach and what we require. In other words, we want all prospective members to understand what we teach baptism should precede the Lord’s Table (and we discourage the baptism of children), but we would not want to impose our conscience on non-members who may be present, but are nonetheless believers, on this particular ordinance.

I would ask Ben this: if non-baptized people are living in sin against God’s command then why would CHBC so heartily endorse them in one venue, but not allow them the elements at the table? I think the answer that they would be drinking unworthily misapplies the “unworthy manner” words of 1 Corinthians, particularly when there is no mention of baptism in the context, but rather an emphasis of disposition.

First, I don’t think you would be imposing your conscience. No one is required to attend your church as a guest. I would presume that other churches in the area would allow un-baptized people to participate.

What do you mean by “heartily endorse them in one venue”? I’m not sure which group of people you’re talking about.

We don’t require baptism for participation in the Lord’s Table. For example, when I thought my daughter understood both and gave evidence of having trusted Christ, I allowed her to partake of the Lord’s Table prior to her baptism. It was essentially a matter of scheduling (we meet in a high school, so our baptism services are not as frequent as they might otherwise be). I’m not arguing in favor of those who refuse baptism (and thus sin), but in principle at least, I’ve not yet understood why we would make one of the two ordinances a prerequisite for the other, thereby essentially elevating its importance over the other. I’m open to instruction on this point; I just don’t see it yet.

FWIW, Bob, we do require baptism for membership, though not for communion.

Also, I agree with Bob that reading baptism into partaking “in an unworthy manner” seems to be a stretch.

Of course, since I’m not a Baptist, you can feel free to blow off my perspective. :-)

If I’m still welcome here. And, if someone who formerly worshipped in baptist, then in grace brethren (gotta immerse thrice), and now presbyterian churches can be of help, here are some thoughts.

1) If immersion were not viewed as an absolute requirement for baptism, then it would never be the case that “time and opportunity” did not present themselves. Get a bowl and a towel and baptize in the name of the trinity. I’m sure this won’t go too far with convinced baptists, and I respect that, but there it is.

2) If baptism is the required ordinance for entrance into the visible church, then it is logically the prerequisite for eating the visible church’s meal. The Lord’s Supper is not a private ordinance it is a communal ordinance, so you have to be part of the community to eat it.

3) The debate between open and closed communion seems to be a debate between whether The Lord’s Supper is an exculsively local church or a catholic church (small c, “of the whole” catholic) ordinance. I’m on the side of catholic. Therefore, in our presbyterian church, the requirement is that those who partake in our (weekly) eucharist be baptized (with water in the name of the trinity) members of an evangelical church. Again, the focus isn’t so much on “obedience” (although baptism is necessary to be in obedience) as it is membership in the visible church. For those who aren’t baptized to eat the supper would be like my barging into my neighbor’s romantic anniversary dinner — I’m not a part of that relationship/community so I shouldn’t be there. Further, and I don’t mean for this to be crude or irreverent, for a man to have sexual relations with his fiance because “time and opportunity” have not yet presented themselves for a wedding would be wrong because they have not yet visibly and formally entered the relationship of which sexual union is a part.

Sorry to double post, but I should have added this to the previous post . . .

I think what baptist’s have to decide is whether or not they believe presbyterian, Lutheran, anglican, and some other churches are really a part of the catholic church — are they real churches in spite of their (in your eyes) erroneous implementation of baptism. If they are, let their members eat with you — because you are all a part of the same body. If they aren’t, don’t.

Keith,

On your second post, I think you’re right, given your understanding of the Lord’s Supper as an ordinance of the universal church. I’d disagree on that understanding, but I’m not going to make an argument over it. Maybe that’s a good question for Bob to answer since it’s his position that tries to straddle the two.

But you raise a good point—I think Baptists need to consider whether other Baptist churches that preach a different gospel are “really a part of the catholic church.” Such “Baptist” churches wouldn’t even be true churches, whereas authentically evangelical congregations from the other denominations you name would be true but (from a Baptist perspective) irregular.

Ben,

When you write, “The table is open to all believing, baptized members of a local church that preaches the same gospel that is preached here,” it seems that you are in agreement with my view that the supper is an ordinance for the catholic church — or at least the “catholic” baptist church.

It would seem that if you really disagreed with my position, and you really viewed the supper as a strictly local ordinance, then you would only permit members of your local body.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, could you elaborate?

Keith,

I just said that’s what my church does. I didn’t speak to my beliefs. And of course, my church doesn’t understand putting non-Christian children in contact with various quantities of water within the context of a church service to be actual baptism. ;-)

Bob and Chris,

Al Mohler uses that precise passage as the foundation for this statement:

“The ‘discipline of the Table’ is thus one of the most important disciplinary functions of the congregation. The Lord’s Supper is not to be served indiscriminately, but only to those baptized believers who are under the discipline of the church and in good standing with their congregations” (Polity, 56).

Earlier in that book, Greg Wills (who has probably read more pages of records of the practices of Baptist churches in the 18th and 19th centuries than I have read pages on any theological subject whatsoever in my life) discusses the practices of Baptists of that era. He writes, “Baptists believed that baptism was prerequisite to observing the Lord’s Supper. Methodists and Presbyterians agreed with this. But Baptists held that immersion of professing believers was the only true baptism. Believers who were sprinkled as infants were not baptized. Baptists therefore did not invite Methodists and Presbyterians to participate in the Lord’s Supper with them. They usually called this practice ‘close communion.’ Close communion separated Baptists from other evangelicals” (Polity, 25). As I remember, Wills documents this practice extensively in his book, Democratic Religion: Freedom, Authority, and Church Discipline in the Baptist South 1785-1900.

Finally, J.L. Reynolds wrote one of the most thorough manuals of Baptist polity. He argues several times in his Church Polity or The Kingdom of Christ for baptism as a prerequisite for church membership. I’ll reproduce only the most relevant portions below. I know that will get long, so let me summarize with three points:

1. The position practiced by Bob’s church is the extreme minority view among Baptists in the time period when theology actually meant something to Baptists (not in any way to imply that theology doesn’t matter to Bob).

2. Everyone—even Presbyterians and others that practice infant baptism—believes that baptism is a prerequisite to participation in the Lord’s Supper except for open communion Baptists. Only open communion Baptists admit people to the Lord’s Supper whom they do not believe to be genuinely baptized.

3. We are surely not going to find a biblical text that speaks to the matter explicitly. Everyone knows that. But I agree with the rationale Reynolds expresses below as a helpful addition to what I said above. It’s surely not a test of fellowship, but since I believe baptism is primarily a local church ordinance, I wouldn’t want to send mixed messages to a congregation about our understanding of baptism and membership.

“Baptism is not, like the Lord’s Supper, a social rite. It signifies the fellowship of the individual believer with Christ, not the fellowship of believers with one another. The obligation to be baptized is independent of the obligation to form social relations with other disciples, and is prior” [emphasis added] (Polity, 319.

“The Lord’s Supper is a social ordinance, and is celebrated by a church in its distinctive character,a s a body of baptized believers. Whatever, therefore, determines the conditions of membership, defines also the terms of communion. That baptism is prior to the supper, in the order of their observance, and therefore, that only the baptized have a right to commune, is so unquestionably the teaching of the Word of God, and was so manifestly the practice of the primitive churches, that we are not surprised at the almost universal agreement of Christians on this point . . . It has, indeed, scarcely ever been deemed worthy of a labored discussion. All the professed followers of the Redeemer, in all ages, with the exception of a very small minority, have concurred in the opinion that the Scriptures make Baptism an indispensable prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper” (Polity, 391).

Reynolds also refers to the 1689 London Baptist Confession’s affirmation of the Lord’s Supper as “a privilege peculiar to believers, regularly admitted to Church fellowship” (Polity 336).

Sorry this was so long. I just thought it would be worthwhile to provide some documentation.

So, Ben, your beliefs would really call for limiting communion to members of a particular local body? If I were a baptized member of a different baptist congregation from the same denomination (or of the same independent persuasion) as you, I would still not be welcome at the Lord’s table in your church?

When you say baptism is primarily a “local church ordinance” what do you mean? Everyone agrees it is administered by a local church the catholic (as distinct from invisible — what you may mean by universal) can’t do it (neither can the invisible). However, do you believe that baptism only admits one to a local body? If so, wouldn’t one then have to be rebaptized everytime one moves to a new local congregation?

I want to dive into this because I think it will be sharpening, but I think I would add this nuance: I do not believe that unbaptized people should partake of the Lord’s Supper (although our constitution allows for the spirit of the law rather the letter of the law to over-rule in unusual situations). But I would be willing to concede an “irregular” baptism (i.e. in mode or sequence) as simply irregular. Though you, Ben, call it “irregular,” you believe it is illigitimate and disobedient.

This leads to the age-old charge against that position of the inconsistency of claiming one is living in disobedience, but still cherishing their preaching authority in our pulpits (i.e. Duncan’s endorsement of “Baptist Polity”). It seems strange to me that you could have him preach in your church (I’m assuming), but would not allow him to commune with you over the Lord’s Table.

This makes most Separatistic Fundamental Baptists far more consistent.

Two more quick things before lunch:

1. I appreciate the “Bible” guy (Chris) and the Presbyterian (Keith) interacting.

2. Ben, I haven’t read as much as Wills on the Baptists, but I am not persuaded that the “non-Strict” view, or open-communionist view, was as rare in the 18th century as you seem to indicate. Perhaps in the 19th century. Some people think that this is because of the great revivals which tended to soften party lines. I don’t know.

When I look at the Bible, I see baptism tied to conversion. Time after time in Scripture, I see people who believe are immediately baptized. I don’t see baptism tied to church membership as we conceive church membership. Why do so many churches deny baptism to believers who attend their churches unless their baptism is tied to joining the church? I have a college-aged son who would like to be baptized but is not because our church won’t baptize him unless he joins the church. In his case, they don’t deny that he is a Christian, but because this isn’t the church that he wants to join, they won’t baptize him. Where in Scripture does it say to refuse baptim to someone you believe is a Christian? This seems the opposite of Christ’s words in the Great Commission and is done,not because of the words of Scripture, but because of the traditions of men.

Keith,

I have not embraced closed communion. I’m certainly more sympathetic to that than to open communion.

By “local church ordinance” I mean that I see baptism as related most particularly to local church fellowship and unity around the work of Christ. I think it’s also associated with membership and discipline. I’m not going to take the time to pull together all kinds of arguments, citations, and Bible verses for all that, and even if I did I’ll concede that the case would be merely consistent and inferential. But I do think this understanding is consistent with many other historic Baptist expressions. Obviously, that doesn’t make it authoritative.

Bob,

I referred to an irregular church, but not an irregular baptism. I don’t think paedobaptism is any kind of baptism—regular or irregular. Pouring or sprinkling might be irregular, but I don’t think the semantic range of baptizo is so narrow that I could say those modes are disobedient.

The charge of inconsistency is age-old because the practice of trans-denominational pulpit-sharing is likewise age-old. Again, that doesn’t make it right, but it’s worth knowing.

I would agree with you that greater consistency is assured when fellowship and cooperation is limited only to those who are most like us. I doubt whether the existing practice of separatistic fundamental Baptists is as consistent as you suggest. Baptists, Presbyterians, and others in the past often cultivated fellowship and cooperation trans-denominationally when they agreed on the gospel. I’m not convinced that separatist fundamentalist Baptists have that level of agreement.

Finally, on your questioning of Wills I can’t offer any further arguments. I’ve only read a few hundred pages on historic Baptist polity, which is surely miniscule compared to Wills, Mohler, and Dever, and probably a good bit less than you too. Though to my mind, the fact that they agree counts a great deal to me.

Why could he not join your church and then transfer his membership? Or, go to the church he wants to join and get baptized there?

The reason baptism has been tied to membership in a church is that traditionally (and I think Scripturally) there was no thought of becoming a Christian, being baptized, and remaining outside the church. Why would a Christian do that? And, why would a pastor or a church baptize someone and then leave them without protection or discipline?

Baptism has been viewed by many (if not most) as the New Testament analog to circumcision — the initiation rite to the people of God, the visible entrance to the visible church. If someone doesn’t want to be in the visible church then why do they want the initiation rite?

All of this is offered as explanation. It is not intended to be harsh or judgemental.

If I can just chime in on a few things:

Keith,

Surprisingly, we find ourselves in agreement again about on a significant point. Specifically, your second point of your first post states the issue very well.

I would differ, however, with the statement that’s Ben’s view leads necessarily to closed communion. It seems you are understanding the concept of a “local church ordinance” differently than he intends. I hesitate to speak for him, but that concept generally means for Baptists what you meant when you wrote “The Lord’s Supper is not a private ordinance it is a communal ordinance, so you have to be part of the community to eat it.” Likewise, you acknowledge that only local churches should administer the ordinance. I believe that is the point that Ben was making.

Stating that the ordinances may only be administered by local churches does not imply that one church cannot or should not recognize the validity of another church’s administration of the ordinances. This would be why churches accept members on the basis of a letter from a former church stating that the believer was a member in good standing (which for Baptists presupposes immersion).

Ben also mentioned that the connection between the Table and church discipline must be considered in this discussion. This is also, as I understand it, an important element of the “close” communion view. By only admitting to the Table those who are members of the administering church and those who are members in good standing at churches of like faith and practice, a proper fence is built around the Table. That is, all who partake are confessing that they are properly under the discipline of a likeminded local assembly. Just as baptism from such an assembly would be accepted for membership, so the good standing within that assembly is accepted as qualification for the Lord’s Table.

Bob and Chris,

If baptism and a good conscience are joined in the way that I believe 1 Peter 3:21 joins them, then it seems that it is a necessary step of obedience to the Lord. In fact, one wonders, based on the Great Commission, if someone called by called a disciple who has not been baptized.

And the memorial, vs. sacramental, nature of the Lord’s Table seems to call into question why admission needs to be given to anyone not meeting the qualification. Hopefully without sounding harsh, I must say that such decisions seem based on sentimentalism rather than principle. Nothing is lost by postponing participation, but, from my viewpoint, something is gained (importance of baptism and church membership).

My previous comment was for Austen.

This one is for Ben. Ben, I understand your not wanting to pull together support for an argument. I wasn’t really asking for that. I was just curious to see if I was understanding you. Also, to see how you (not the sources) sort out your position for practical application.

Austen,

Because it thrills me to agree with Keith, I will offer Amen to his post (with qualification on the circumcision part).

Dave,

I see what you mean about Ben’s position and this is what I thought he perhaps meant. So, Ben is it?

I’m appreciating this irenic conversation, and I don’t want to disrupt the peace. However, I must comment (and hopefully do so in a non-inflamatory way) that it seems curious to me that it is so important for baptists to make clear that nothing “mystical” or “sacramental” (which is different from sacerdotal) happens in the ordinances, yet they seem the so very concerned that they practice them with exact accuracy.

If the ordinances (I can live with your word here) are nothing more than memory or visual aids (again, I’m not trying to be insulting), why does this question matter so much?

Finally, I would go on the record as saying that I think something is lost if either of these ordinances are needlessly delayed or neglected.

Sentimentalism? Ouch.

As I said, I’m glad to learn on this point, and others have obviously thought through it more than I have. It does seem like Scripture is less clear on this point than history and church Constitutions are, but again, I could be (and probably am) mistaken. My understanding has simply been that there are 2 ordinances, and I haven’t heretofore understood 1 to be a prerequisite to or more important than the other. Perhaps—as indicated by the fact that I’m essentially on an island in a conversation in which even staunch rivals are in agreement—I’m off on this point. I certainly am not intending to diminish the importance of either baptism or church membership. I’ll rethink it.

In the meantime, please pray with me that my daughter doesn’t get sick or die.

Unless she’s holding on to bitterness against some other Christian or knowingly refusing to repent of a particular sin, she should be fine.

I’m pretty sure you were speaking tounge in cheek, but let me just add the following anyway: Ironically, speaking as the “sacramentalist” here, I believe that these sacraments were given to us by God for our good, so He isn’t sitting up in heaven waiting for us to make a mistake with them so he can strike us dead. If He were then it would seem that they become “mystical” when abused, even if they aren’t “mystical” when used properly. Communion is often called eucharist — the joyful meal. The way it will make us sick or dead is to eat of the one loaf while we are divided.

I keep telling myself I don’t have time for this, but I have to toss in some ideas nonetheless.

First, I do not hold the now-almost-universal Baptist strict memorialist view of the Lord’s Supper. While I still balk at the term sacrament, I do think that there has been an unfortunate diminishment of the Lord’s Table by the memorialist view.

If my understanding of Baptist history is anywhere near the mark, most Baptists, particularly Calvinistic Baptists, did not hold the simple memorialist perspective until the late 18th century. In fact, I think Michael Haykin credits/blames John Suttcliff and some other contemporaries for that shift of perspective among Particular Baptists.

That said, I agree with the Presbyerian that it seems a bit odd that Baptists are so determined to make sure that the Lord’s Table is taken only by qualified people (as they define it) when all it is is a memorial service. It can’t be just a memorial service. It doesn’t seem logical that memorialism is the only purpose. Why not watch a movie?

I agree with the older Baptists that it is a means of grace. Thus, — back to the baptism question — John Colett Ryland makes sense to me as Oliver summarizes him:

“All Christians ‘must have equal right to ALL the privileges of the Gospel.’Since all Christians derie such right from Christ, no one has the right to deprive any who ‘are as capable of enjoying, and improving those privileges, as effectually to all moral ends of their appointment as we ourselves are.’ This overrides ‘different sentiments or mistakes about the subject and mode of baptism’. Exclusion of true Christians from any means of grace is an invasion of Christ’s perogative as well as being an injury to the Christians concerned. Since Christ ‘does accept Paedobaptist Christians, when they remember Him at His table. . .it therefore appears to us, a setting of our faces against the LORD JESUS CHRIST, and His conduct in the dispenstations of His grace, to refuse admittance to His table to such of our Christian brethren as He Himself admits there’(emphasis his).

I too will adopt Anderson’s humble mode during this conversation. (It’s my defense mechanism kicking in because so much of the other argument does make sense.)However, in the spirit of irenic debate, I would like to ask Ben and Dave:

If a paedobaptist’s baptism is illegitimate, not a baptism (which I am inclined to agree), and baptism is a prerequisite for fellowship at the Lord’s Table (which I am inclined to disagree) then has the Presbyterian Lig Duncan (for example) never been to the Lord’s Table?

How can you still call their communion service a communion service if every participant isn’t even invited? If it is a communion service, albeit Presbyterian, does that not mean that the Lord sees it as such? If He sees it as such, how come you don’t?

I too am willing to be corrected. I hope the questions don’t seem simplistic. Thanks for your input. I’m loving it.

Keith,
You said, “If the ordinances (I can live with your word here) are nothing more than memory or visual aids (again, I’m not trying to be insulting), why does this question matter so much?”
True, too often all that our fundamental churches say about communion is that it is a remembrance or a memorial of Christ’s death on the cross. While it is certainly that, it is also (1) a look forward to when Christ will eat and drink of the elements with His church, and (2) a current re-identification with Christ and His sacrifice. Paul makes this last point in 1 Cor. 10:16 when he says it is a “participation” (ESV) in the blood and body of Christ. I liken it to couples who re-establish their wedding vows. They aren’t getting married again but they are saying that this covenant relationship is still very important to them. When I take communion, I am saying that this relationship that I have to Christ is still everything to me. Now, how can I say that if I am not living in obedience to Him? It would be like a wife re-affirming her wedding vows while living with another guy. So, I view communion as very important and significant. Doing it right matters a lot to me.

It seems odd that the modifier “strict” needs to be placed before memorial or memorialist. Surely you don’t believe that grace is communicated through the physical elements, do you?

While I recognize that there is often debate about the terms, I take the older position regarding the definition of sacraments that understands it in its Romish usage. I think Erickson is helpful here.

The Ryland quote doesn’t do much for me. If the Lord commanded the baptism of His disciples, and that means the immersion of believers in water, then He, in fact, set the boundaries of who is to be recognized as an obedient disciple. It doesn’t work to then make some vague appeal to Christ’s Lordship that assumes (with no biblical warrant) that Christ accepts a paedobaptist at the communion table. Not convincing to me at all.

I really don’t see the value of your question about Duncan other than as a curiousity, but I wouldn’t not deny that he’s been to the Table. Who would or could? If he has taken the Lord’s Supper, he’s obviously been to the table. Now, if he didn’t observe it in the form required by the NT, I would deny that. That’s really the comparison that is at stake.

On the second question, I don’t think the validity of the attenders does much to the name or reality of the observance. It seems as if all parties recognize that those who present themselves for the Lord’s Supper are professing believers and that some may not be genuine in that profession. I don’t believe that changes the ordinance at all. The ordinance is what it is, and the qualifications of the observants is a separate matter.

I guess I am missing the import of these questions.

I realized I forgot to address the question of why proper qualifications are important if it is “only a memorial”?

This question is baffling to me in that I can’t understand the logic that underpins it.

On what basis does one draw the conclusion that if it is only a memorial, anyone can do it? Is it somehow impossible to dishonor or despise a memorial?

How can an unbeliever truly remember the Lord’s death until He comes? If he has no saving relationship to that death, then he is under God’s wrath and not welcome to this privilege and should not be allowed to think that observing it brings him any spiritual benefit.

Why should someone outside the fellowship of the visible Body of Christ be allowed to enjoy this time of remembrance?

Andy,

As a presbyterian, I have no problem with the covenant renewal understanding of the supper that you lay out. However, I’m not a memorialist.

If you are a memorialist, then I would still come back with, “Well sure, if I’m going to renew my wedding vows, it would be meaningless if I’d never been married and hypocritical if I’m an unrepentant adulterer. However, what’s the problem with leaving out some components of the original wedding ceremony? We’re already married, so anything that reminds us of that truth and its accompanying responsibilities will do just fine as a memorial.”

Also, as pertains to the larger discussion here, your position would seem to require baptism as a prerequisite to communion. Again, something which as a presbyterian I support.

Dave,

Point taken, you’re of course correct that it is possible to dishonor a memorial.

But really, my original comment wasn’t intended to argue that the memorialist position should require no concern with who participates. It was intended to indicate that it seems curious (to me which really is insignificant to the real issue at hand) that the memorialists often seem more concerned than the “sacramentalists” about the minutia of detail (water’s not enough, it’s gotta be a lot of water; what age is appropriate; what is sufficient evidence of regeneration; etc.)

Keith,

By local church ordinance I mean what Dave says and perhaps a little more. I understand that the implication goes a bit beyond merely the local church context in which it is observed. I think it also includes a reminder that the local, covenanted body of believers depend not only individually but also corporately on the work of Christ on their behalf to accomplish the sanctification of the corporate body. In other words, the local body is united within itself through its unity with him. I don’t think that understanding necessarily precludes all participation by non-members.

And I don’t think baptism in and of itself necessarily admits an individual to anything, not even a local body.

Surely you don’t believe that grace is communicated through the physical elements, do you?

That’s a bit tricky for me to answer because it depends on what you mean by “grace” and “communicated.” But, as I said, I believe that communion is a means of grace even as prayer is a means of grace.

I put it this way -

A “means of grace” is a God-ordained means which He commands us to use and through which He uniquely ministers more grace (not saving) to the soul of the believer in a way that is exclusive, or almost exlusive, to that means.

Preaching is commanded and is a means of grace. Faith comes by hearing, etc. Prayer is commanded and is a means of grace that ministers to the soul in a way that preaching does not. And so forth. . .

Now to communion.

If a person is in known rebellion against an ordinance of God then he is going through a ritual, not actual communion. Thus, my question: are Presbyterians merely going through a ritual? Thus, I would argue that the validity of the attenders does indeed much to the reality of the observance. Unbelievers who pray are not being heard, nor are they enjoying communion with God. Their status as rebellious and unrepentent sinners makes their prayer non-prayer, I think.

If Presbyterians are indeed in sin because of their non-baptism and baptism is a prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper then I think that it follows that communion (the actual purpose of the Lord’s supper) is not a reality. Unless, of course, the only purpose of the Supper was to “remember!”

I may concede that they are sinful (whether intentionally or in ignorance in non-baptism), but I have difficulty requiring baptism for another commanded ordinance.

Now, back to the question.

R.L. Dabney assumed that all Christians would admit that there was a sense in which there was real presence at the Lord’s Table. That assumption is outdated now.

But, in brief, yes. Grace (not saving) is given to us through the Lord’s Supper, not mystically through the elements, that is unique to the grace given to us through other means (i.e. preaching). That’s one reason why all Christians agree that the communion table is important.

This view is consistent with the Baptist Keach (see his catechism), and though Spurgeon modified the language by omitting “means,” he still answered the question -

80 Q What is the Lord’s Supper?

A The Lord’s Supper is an ordinance of the New Testament, instituted by Jesus Christ; wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to his appointment, his death is shown forth (1Co 11:23-26), and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporeal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of his body and blood, with all his benefits, to their spiritual nourishment, and growth in grace (1Co 10:16). emphasis mine

Whatever he meant by that, I think we could all agree he didn’t mean simple memorialism.

This relates to the question of sequence and mode in baptism, I think, because if one truly believes in the unique ministry of communion (as all evangelicals do whether they adhere to a memorialist view or a “means” view”) then the question of participation moves to front and center. I am not prepared to say that someone cannot pray because they have not been baptized even if I do hold to immersion as the Christ-ordained method of baptism. I cannot say, “You are forbidden to obey God here because you have not obeyed Him there.”

Ben,

As I understand it (which I think is pretty well, having been raised a baptist), baptists believe that baptism is an act of obedience in which a believer publicly professes his faith, and in which his union (in death, burial, and resurrection) with Christ is symbolized, all in the name of the Trinity, how does it not admit that believer to anything. How is this not, at minimum, the visible sign of the baptized entrance into the visible church?

Dr. Doran, you mentioned baptism and church membership as institutions which could be minimized by opening the Lord’s Table to the unbaptized. How do you see the two (baptism & membership) relating? (Ben’s last post made me wonder, since it seems that he would open the Lord’s Table to non-members, though not to the unbaptized, and since he doesn’t see a necessary connection between baptism & membership.)

Bob said “I cannot say, ‘You are forbidden to obey God here because you have not obeyed Him there.’” That’s been the essential issue behind my admittance of the not-yet-baptized to the Lord’s Table.

However, as a friend mentioned off-line, we’re dealing with this in part because of the delay which we have between conversion and baptism, one that would have been novel to the NT church. It seems that the idea of an unbaptized Christian never entered their minds, so the very question of whether or not to admit the unbaptized to the Lord’s Table would have been absurd.

We use Acts 2 to argue the Faith-Baptism-Membership order — could we also take from it a Faith-Baptism-Membership-Breaking of Bread necessary order?

In other words, if we take Acts 2 to imply a Credobaptist position (which many do), does it not also imply that baptism and membership must precede partaking of the Lord’s Supper?

I sit here with a smile as I type because the person with whom I seem to have the most common understanding (not necessarily agreement) on these issues is the Presbyterian. Keith, you seem to have been a well educated Baptist at one point.

We have loose ends floating around…

I thought I had written earlier, but must have edited myself, that I don’t understand the hard distinction that is being made between a memorial and a means of grace. Bob, I take your answer to mean that the Table is a means of grace precisely because it displays the Lord’s death (a memorial) and involves the presence of the Lord (something promised to the congregation that gathers in His name). But you don’t tie this flow of this grace to the physical elements. I don’t think that the catechism quote stands opposed to a memorial or symbolic view of the Table. I would take the exercise of faith as a synonym of remembering the Lord’s death (perhaps in a way similar to the act of faith that listens to the Word preached so that it becomes a means of grace to the soul).

1 Cor 11 makes it very clear that the Lord’s Supper is for the gathered congregation (“come together as a church” v. 18, cf. vv. 20, 22, 33). The participants are to engage in it so as to not “despise the church of God” (v. 22). While it is a point of interpretive debate, I take the words “does not judge the body rightly” (v. 29) to also refer to the body of believers. All of this leads me to the conclusion that the Lord’s Table is for those who are members of the body. That’s the governing principle. Whether there are principles to warrant allowing others from other assemblies to partake is the next question, but it doesn’t invalidate the first question.

Chris, if I understand Ben correctly (and as Keith seems to have), then I disagree with him. As I understand it, water baptism, since it correspondence to Spirit baptism, should not be administered to those who are not joining with the body (and only those who have been baptized should be allowed to join with the body). Since the Lord’s Table is for the congregation (i.e., those who have been brought into the fellowship), then it follows that only those who have been baptized can partake of the Table.

Bob, I guess my point on the reality of the ordinance would be more simplified. To borrow your illustration, if an unbeliever is present when our congregation prays, we are still praying whether he can pray or not. Procedurally, I don’t believe this is the best way to arrive at our theological positions. Not saying it is invalid, but it seems to be a speculative exercise and runs the danger of eliminating possible conclusions because we simply don’t like what they entail (rather than they are unsupportable biblically).

Keith, Dave, and Chris,

I’m not intending to disconnect baptism and membership, as if a church should baptize a person knowing that he will not join the church. My statement that baptism “in and of itself” doesn’t admit anyone to anything is simply a recognition that church membership in a congregational church will probably require more than mere baptism.

I see Keith’s point about the visible church, but wouldn’t there be a difference between actual admission and a “visible sign” of admission? Perhaps I’m trying to draw lines of distinction that are too fine, in which case I have no desire to take this discussion in a tangential direction. I really don’t think we have much of an argument.

Dave,

I agree much of what you, particularly when you clarify “remembering.” Therefore, my concern is probably directed more to a narrow comprehension of what it means to “remember” which I find to be endemic in Baptist circles that customarily pull the table out on the first Sunday of each month to remember the fact that Jesus died.

Since your concept of “remembering” is defined by Spurgeon’s words “but by faith, made partakers of his body and blood, with all his benefits, to their spiritual nourishment, and growth in grace” then we are more on the same page than not.

But I am inclined to think that most communicants (dare I use the word?) are not by faith, being spiritulaly nourished and growing in the faith. And I am still not persuaded by the closed arguments, though as I admitted in my very first post, the logic is very compelling. I may yet be persuaded. I’m still hung up on your interpretation of 1 Peter 3:21 way back a zillion posts ago. Got to think on that one.

I’m going to run across the street and buy a jamocha shake and contemplate on these arguments. Perhaps my foggy brain will be cleared by my favorite remedy.

To all: Carry on. Thanks for making a very provocative discussion. I may reload and come back for another round in the future!

Whew, there’s starting to be a lot of different points to respond to . . .

Chris, I think I agree with you about what we see in the NT pages themselves regarding the no-delay baptism approach. I don’t know if it means anything to those in this discussion, but I do believe church history shows that it wasn’t too long before converts to Christianity were required to be catechized (sometimes for as long as I year if I remember my lessons correctly) prior to baptism (along with their families including infant children by the way — come on allow me a few digs).

Bob, you shouldn’t forbid someone to pray because they haven’t been baptized because prayer is both a public/corporate and a private/individual discipline/blessing. The Supper, on the other hand, is exclusively a public/corporate — need we say it, communal — discipline/blessing. Therefore, one must be a part of the community to partake, and for most Christians most of the time (and for the people of the Old Testament who’s initiatory rite was circumcision) one could not enter the community in any way other than baptism. Now, this would not for presbyterians (I think, here I speak somewhat speculatively) preclude allowing someone to take communion in say a prison camp where it truly was impossible to conduct a baptism. In other words, normally one must be baptized to enter the community and eat the communal meal. However, these thigs, while means of grace, are not magic tricks that if done out of sequence blow up in your face. Oh, and by the way, it sounds to me like you’re well on your way to a conversion to presbyterianism.

Dave, I think Bob’s question is: If EVERYONE in the service is unqualified to participate in the ordinance, is it an ordinance just because we break bread and drink wine? That may not change your answer, and you may have understood that, but I wasn’t sure, and I just wanted to spread some more love around.

Ben, in the presbyterian church all that is needed for communicant membership (I’m not afraid to use the word Bob, you’ll get used to it) is baptism, a credible profession of faith, and a profession of willingness to submit to the discipline of the church (work for it’s peace. . .) You do not need to agree to the Westminster Confession or any local church covenant. To become an elder or deacon you would need to affirm your agreement with such documents, but not to be a member. Again, it strikes me as curious (and again I’m not trying to insult) how baptists seem so concerned to practice the ordinances in exact biblical precision, but they’ll add extra-biblical requirements for church membership without hesitation. Perhaps such practice explains Andy’s son’s delay in both getting baptized and in joining a church?

Have you had that coffee yet Bob?

Keith,

I am not sure what requirements beyond the ones you listed are imposed by baptists. The Baptist church of which I am a member asks nothing more than what you have outlined, although in a different order.

Keith,

Do you think it’s unreasonable for a congregational church to require a congregational vote? I’ll acknowledge that the biblical case is inferential, but I don’t understand Presbyterians to be categorically opposed to inferential arguments.

Dave,

You’re right again. I should not have said baptists inclusively. I should have said some baptists. In this discussion specifically it seemed like Ben was adding something (which didn’t offend me, I just don’t think I understand the reason or possibly the value).

As far as the order goes. Presbyterians would also require the profession of faith to proceed the baptism in a convert who had not been baptized as a covenant child.

Ben,

No opposition to inferential arguments from me or from presbyterians in general.

As far as the inferential argument for a congregational vote as a prerequisite for membership as distinct from baptism goes, from whence cometh the inference — just curious.

Even so, I don’t have any problem with the congregation voting to approve a new member, it just seems like an inadequate (if not meaningless) ritual. Again, I’m not trying to insult, here’s what I mean:

a) If the pastor (or the elders, or for most baptists the elders who are called deacons) is going to baptize someone, surely he must be persuaded that the candidate has given a credible profession and is not living in active unrepentant sin. So, unless the pastor was mistaken and the congregation had info he didn’t have, why would the congregation bar a professing Christian from membership?

b) If there is such a strong belief that the entire congregation must be involved in approving new members, it would seem like they should do so PRIOR to the baptism. If you’re not going to admit a person to your care and discipline, why would you baptize them?

In the presbyterian church the congregation is involved, just not with a vote to approve membership. The baptized (or the baptized’s parents) promise to work for the peace of the church and to submit to its discipline and the existing members promise to help the baptized (or the baptized along with his parents) grow in the Lord. It’s just that the congregation does not have the right to exclude a baptized Christian from membership without proper disciplinary proceedings — it is Christ’s church not the congregation’s church.

The rest of you guys must be sleeping in or watching cartoons this morning (just kidding, you’re probably working on your sermons since you spent too much time here yesterday).

If you get back to this Dave, could you address the following:

You seem to indicate that you think the difference between the memorialist view (Zwingli’s, and until Bob listed some of the quotes above, what I thought was universally held by baptists) and the sacramentalist view (Luther’s and Calvin’s with important differences) is whether or not grace is communicated via the physical elements. However, it seems to me that the view Bob is arguing for and which you are allowing is the same as Calvin’s/presbyterian view — grace is communicated in a special way through the communal ordinance, Christ is present spritually in the elements but not exclusively in the elements. Lutherans, I believe, hold that Christ is physically present in the elements (the elements don’t become Christ, he is present in them the way fire is present in molten metal, but he is nevertheless in them), but presbyterians don’t. Zwingly, Calvin, and Luther couldn’t agree on their positions, are you saying that Zwingly and Calvin had no real disagreement?

The rest of you guys must be sleeping in or watching cartoons this morning (just kidding, you’re probably working on your sermons since you spent too much time here yesterday).

If you get back to this Dave, could you address the following:

You seem to indicate that you think the difference between the memorialist view (Zwingli’s, and until Bob listed some of the quotes above, what I thought was universally held by baptists) and the sacramentalist view (Luther’s and Calvin’s with important differences) is whether or not grace is communicated via the physical elements. However, it seems to me that the view Bob is arguing for and which you are allowing is the same as Calvin’s/presbyterian view — grace is communicated in a special way through the communal ordinance, Christ is present spritually in the elements but not exclusively in the elements. Lutherans, I believe, hold that Christ is physically present in the elements (the elements don’t become Christ, he is present in them the way fire is present in molten metal, but he is nevertheless in them), but presbyterians don’t. Zwingly, Calvin, and Luther couldn’t agree on their positions, are you saying that Zwingly and Calvin had no real disagreement?

Keith, that is exactly my question. I think Calvin and Zwingli did, in fact, have a disagreement and I would argue that Particular Baptists in the 18th century had a modified Calvin view, or tempered. Honestly, Calvin’s view is not as easy to grasp for me (as I read him) as was Zwingli’s (which, to me, is simplistic memorialism) although I do believe in a mystical communication of grace in the communal ordinance.

The word “mystical” freaks people out, so I often use the word “unique” which doesn’t convey the concept of mystical/spiritual as well but nonetheless retains the uniqueness of the means.

And for the sake of clarity and honesty, I have not read Zwingli. I have only read other’s impressions of his views, so perhaps I misunderstand him and over-simplify him.

I have read Calvin and the Puritans, however, on the Lord’s Supper and much of it makes sense to me.

Interestingly, the first time the sacrament of the Lord’s supper was done, it was administered by Jesus Himself to the non-believer Judas. The “eat unworthily” passage in context were people who were getting drunk at the table, and eating all the food before the poor could get to it. That said, our church gives warnings about the Lord’s supper. We verbally hedge the table, but practically barring someone from taking would be a difficult endeavor. However, we do not allow someone to be a member of our church unless they have been post-salvation baptized since that is the only type of baptism we recognize as legit.

Pastor Bixby,

I just noticed your entry on this interesting topic. Last week, at the Summer School, I gave a lecture on John Bunyan. Between his imprisonments (1673), Bunyan wrote a book, whose title reveals which side he was on: Differences in Judgment About Water Baptism, No Bar to Communion.

As an aside re: Brent’s comment above, over in the Missouri Synod, where the official policy is closed communion, the pastor traditionally administers the Bread to the faithful, which gives him the opportunity to exercise discipline at the altar. Of course, that means not being nice. Some pastors think that saying “close” instead of “closed” solves the problem. Others just practice open communion. Others rely on pledge cards that are signed and placed in the offering plate.

I learn something everyday. I guess I didn’t realize that about the Missouri Synod. In some ways it makes sense to me, but in other ways I think I’d be frightened because a pastor’s judgment could only be based on externals. Good hypocrites could fool me every time. I’d rather leave it between the communicant and God. Yet, perhaps too many Baptists are too careless…

BTW, is that lecture recorded? I’d like to hear it.