# Baptism / Lord's Supper Questions



## JML (Apr 8, 2010)

A few questions regarding baptism and the Lord's Supper

1. Does your church, session, etc. permit the partaking of the Lord's Supper by a visiting Baptist (for Presbyterians) or a visiting Presbyterian (for Baptists)? This is assuming that the person has a credible profession of faith. The reason I ask is that some (most) baptists require immersion as a prerequisite for partaking of the Lord's Supper and I saw on another thread a Presbyterian saying that you had to be a Presbyterian to partake of the Lord's Supper in his church.

2. This question is more for Baptists but the Presbyterians are welcome to weigh in as well. If you live in a climate or scenario where baptism is sometimes difficult during certain parts of the year (cold weather, no baptistry), would you permit a person who has recently made a profession of faith to partake of the Lord's Supper before they are baptized or would you require them to wait the necessary time until arrangements can be made to immerse them? This is not necessarily as much trouble for Presbyterians because you don't need as much water.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Apr 8, 2010)

We have weekly communion in our congregation. We typically introduce that portion of the service with a reading from 1 Cor. 11 and an announcement that all are welcome who are members in good standing of a Bible-believing/gospel church. They must not be under disciple. We also warn them about harboring known, unconfessed sin or other hypocrisies. 

Reformed/Presbyterians as a rule do not make the mode of baptism an issue. In most Christian churches being a member in good standing implies that one has been properly baptized according the order of that church/denomination.


----------



## Jack K (Apr 8, 2010)

In my experience it's highly unusual for Presbyterians to limit participation only to Presbyterians, unless the church refuses ALL non-members of that particular church. Being baptized the proper way would not be an issue, since Presbyterians generally accept an immersian as valid.

The PCA church I'm a member of issues a warning, but welcomes all who profess faith. No church membership or baptism is required. If a person were to attend regularly and partake regularly without being baptized, the elders would probably urge the person to either profess faith and be baptized or else refrain. In theory, such a person could be barred from the table if they persisted in being unrepentant (non-professing or refusing baptism) but I've never seen it come to that.

The Baptist church I attend (not fully Reformed, but Calvinistic and elder-led) has only recently started issuing a warning. All who profess faith are welcome. I'm a Presbyterian and it's never been an issue.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 8, 2010)

At the PCA Church I am a member of all are welcome to receive communion as long as they are a member in good standing of a church that teaches salvation by grace through faith, and have examined themselves before hand.


----------



## JML (Apr 8, 2010)

DD2009 said:


> At the PCA Church I am a member of all are welcome to receive communion as long as they are a member in good standing of a church that teaches salvation by grace through faith, and have examined themselves before hand.


 
So the consensus seems to be that Presbyterians will accept Baptists at the Lord's Table. What about Baptists? Because almost every Baptist church I have been a part of or been to state that you have to be a member in good standing of a bible believing church and have been baptized by immersion. So, Baptists, would you permit a Presbyterian to partake of the Lord's Supper since they have not been immersed?


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Apr 8, 2010)

John Lanier said:


> DD2009 said:
> 
> 
> > At the PCA Church I am a member of all are welcome to receive communion as long as they are a member in good standing of a church that teaches salvation by grace through faith, and have examined themselves before hand.
> ...


 
The baptist church I grew up in only accepted members of the local congregation at the Lord's table. Other baptists couldn't even take it it they weren't a member of our local church.


----------



## larryjf (Apr 8, 2010)

John Lanier said:


> 1. Does your church, session, etc. permit the partaking of the Lord's Supper by a visiting Baptist (for Presbyterians)


We do allow Baptists to partake of the Lord's Supper. Salvation is the focus for the Lord's Supper, and we believe faithful Baptists to be saved.

---------- Post added at 04:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:24 PM ----------

By the way, I'm Presbyterian and was baptized by a Presbyterian Pastor by immersion...so i guess i have my bases covered.


----------



## rbcbob (Apr 8, 2010)

We allow visiting Paedobaptists to partake of the Lord’s supper.

We require membership be entered into by those who have been immersed.


----------



## JML (Apr 8, 2010)

Hi Bob,

What are your thoughts on my second question in the OP. I know it is an odd scenario.


----------



## rbcbob (Apr 8, 2010)

John Lanier said:


> Hi Bob,
> 
> What are your thoughts on my second question in the OP. I know it is an odd scenario.


 
See Dagg, On Church Order, "Immersion in Cold Climates", pp. 308-312


----------



## dudley (Apr 9, 2010)

I am a Presbyterian and was baptised by immersion in the Baptist church. I am welcome to the ordinance of the Lords Supper when I visit the Baptist church.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Apr 9, 2010)

John Lanier said:


> A few questions regarding baptism and the Lord's Supper
> 
> 1. Does your church, session, etc. permit the partaking of the Lord's Supper by a visiting Baptist (for Presbyterians) or a visiting Presbyterian (for Baptists)? This is assuming that the person has a credible profession of faith. The reason I ask is that some (most) baptists require immersion as a prerequisite for partaking of the Lord's Supper and I saw on another thread a Presbyterian saying that you had to be a Presbyterian to partake of the Lord's Supper in his church.
> 
> 2. This question is more for Baptists but the Presbyterians are welcome to weigh in as well. If you live in a climate or scenario where baptism is sometimes difficult during certain parts of the year (cold weather, no baptistry), would you permit a person who has recently made a profession of faith to partake of the Lord's Supper before they are baptized or would you require them to wait the necessary time until arrangements can be made to immerse them? This is not necessarily as much trouble for Presbyterians because you don't need as much water.



To the first question, our church practices closed communion. Our confession of faith (BF&M) states:



> Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper. BF&M VII



Now, this is the stated position of the church. However, our method of fencing the table consists of stating who may and may not receive the ordinance worthily. A warning is issued to those who should not. Then we proceed with the Supper.

As for the second question, No. We would require them to wait until the necessary arrangements could be made to immerse them. However, we have an indoor baptistry. Tough, I do love outdoor baptisms, we only do them when the weather permits. So in the winter we would do them in the church house.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 9, 2010)

Our church (Presbyterian) allows Baptists to come to the Table. The only require is one be a baptized, professing Christian. Of course, examination is also a condition in coming to the Lord's Table.

My wife and I have visited Bob's church (Reformed Baptist), and they have allowed us to come to the Table with them in sweet fellowship. If I recall correctly, the requirement/warning spoken by the pastor was very similar to what I say as well.

I have a couple of side questions to ask of Baptists who would require immersion (and I hope these progress, not derail, the thread): if a Presbyterian were to visit the congregation, but he were a former Baptist who switched to Presbyterianism later in life, would that be viewed differently? In other words, he or she is an immersed professing believer, but not currently a Baptist, would that be a problem? And secondly, what if this immersion took place in conjunction with a false profession of faith. In other words, if the person was immersed, but later came to faith (and was not re-baptized after this), and was now Presbyterian, would he or she be permitted to come to the Table?

I am not asking these questions to start any kind of a debate whatsoever; I am only curious as to the thinking of Baptists in these matters in hopes of better understanding and mutual fellowship.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Apr 9, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> If a Presbyterian were to visit the congregation, but he were a former Baptist who switched to Presbyterianism later in life, would that be viewed differently? In other words, he or she is an immersed professing believer, but not currently a Baptist, would that be a problem?


 
No.


----------



## Rich Koster (Apr 9, 2010)

I was welcomed, as a Baptist, at a PCA. The pastor knew about me, via some friends who had joined recently, and I was not interviewed.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 9, 2010)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> > If a Presbyterian were to visit the congregation, but he were a former Baptist who switched to Presbyterianism later in life, would that be viewed differently? In other words, he or she is an immersed professing believer, but not currently a Baptist, would that be a problem?
> ...


 
C.M. what would exactly be the problem? I think I'm not understanding the BF&M perhaps. Is it because of the person is not a _member _of a Baptist church? Or would it be only for members of the local congregation where the Supper is being served?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Apr 9, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> C. M. Sheffield said:
> 
> 
> > Marrow Man said:
> ...


 
You asked if it would be a problem. I said "No" it wouldn't. They would meet the requirements of our confession.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 9, 2010)

Yes, I just realized that (after my wife pointed it out), and it's embarrassingly stupid on my part. I was already deleting my response. Thanks for the reply.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Apr 9, 2010)

Not a problem. I should have been clearer.


----------



## JML (Apr 9, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> In other words, if the person was immersed, but later came to faith...and was now Presbyterian, would he or she be permitted to come to the Table?





I knew it. So they were a Baptist and lost and now that they are Presbyterian they have come to faith. Presbyterians are nice to us and all but they consider us not in faith. 

Where is the "I know you didn't mean it to sound like that but it came out that way" smiley? 

---------- Post added at 11:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 AM ----------

For those who require immersion to partake of the Lord's Supper, help me understand. Since a Presbyterian is a part of the universal church, why would the Lord's Supper be denied to them?


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 9, 2010)

John Lanier said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> > In other words, if the person was immersed, but later came to faith...and was now Presbyterian, would he or she be permitted to come to the Table?
> ...



Dude, I was talking about myself! I'm the hypothetical. I was immersed at around age 10 in a Baptist church because I "walked the aisle" and said "yes" to a couple of questions. I came to faith in Christ at age 21 while in college, and attended the same Baptist church on weekends home from college. I later united with a PCA church, and Presbyterians of course do not re-baptized. So, I was asking, even though I was technically "immersed," how Baptist churches that require immersion would view my coming to the Table.


----------



## rbcbob (Apr 9, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> Our church (Presbyterian) allows Baptists to come to the Table. The only require is one be a baptized, professing Christian. Of course, examination is also a condition in coming to the Lord's Table.
> 
> My wife and I have visited Bob's church (Reformed Baptist), and they have allowed us to come to the Table with them in sweet fellowship. If I recall correctly, the requirement/warning spoken by the pastor was very similar to what I say as well.
> 
> ...



Tim,
We would welcome visiting baptized (according to their sincere beliefs) believers to our table. In the specifics you mention we would have reservations about receiving such into membership.


----------



## JML (Apr 9, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> John Lanier said:
> 
> 
> > Marrow Man said:
> ...


 
Hey Tim,

You do know that I was kidding, right?


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 9, 2010)

As was I, friend! Oh, it's a true story, but I was kidding in my "offense."


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Apr 9, 2010)

rbcbob said:


> Tim,
> We would welcome visiting baptized (according to their sincere beliefs) believers to our table. In the specifics you mention we would have reservations about receiving such into membership.


 
Bob,

Do you not see the inconsistency of saying that a Presbyterian brother is allowed at the Communion Table but not into the church's communion (i.e. membership)? 

In my mind, there are only two consistent positions:

Those sprinkled as infants are allowed at the Lord's Table and into the churches membership (The position of John Bunyan).
Those sprinkled as infants are not allowed at the Lord's Table and therefore not allowed into the church's membership (The position of Gill, Dagg, Conner, et al).
I am sincerely interested in hearing your rationale.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 9, 2010)

Ah, but C.M., you have the additional complication of the matter which you accepted above: not all Presbyterians were sprinkled as infants. For example, I am Presbyterian but was not baptized as an infant.

I believe that Scott Clark has posited the opposing viewpoint (from a URC/Reformed Church perspective) -- they will not allow those who will not unite with their church because of a rejection of paedo-baptism to also come to the Lord's Table. The rationale: if you reject one sacrament then why would you accept the other? Of course, it's not exactly the same thing coming from the other side (e.g., both Presbyterians and Baptists accept adult baptisms), it's just interesting that some folks but both sides link the sacraments together while others do not.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Apr 9, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> Ah, but C.M., you have the additional complication of the matter which you accepted above: not all Presbyterians were sprinkled as infants. For example, I am Presbyterian but was not baptized as an infant.
> 
> I believe that Scott Clark has posited the opposing viewpoint (from a URC/Reformed Church perspective) -- they will not allow those who will not unite with their church because of a rejection of paedo-baptism to also come to the Lord's Table. The rationale: if you reject one sacrament then why would you accept the other? Of course, it's not exactly the same thing coming from the other side (e.g., both Presbyterians and Baptists accept adult baptisms), it's just interesting that some folks but both sides link the sacraments together while others do not.


 
Not at all. At this point, I'm _only_ concerned with those who were sprinkled as infants and have yet to receive believer's baptism. You (and Ligon Duncan ) would be welcomed to the Table, and into membership (respectively).


----------



## Kiffin (Apr 10, 2010)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> To the first question, our church practices *closed communion*. Our confession of faith (BF&M) states:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey Pastor,

Do you make a distinction between closed and close communion? For example, if there is a visiting Baptist, would you allow them to partake?


----------



## dudley (Apr 10, 2010)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> > C. M. Sheffield said:
> ...


 
I agree and said earlier in this thread that I am a Presbyterian and was baptised by immersion in the Baptist church. "*I am welcome to the ordinance of the Lords Supper when I visit the Baptist church." it is not a problem.* I am allowed to come to the Table with them in sweet fellowship as a fellow Reformed Protestant Christian.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 10, 2010)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Not at all. At this point, I'm _only_ concerned with those who were sprinkled as infants and have yet to receive believer's baptism. You (and Ligon Duncan ) would be welcomed to the Table, and into membership (respectively).


 
 Does Mark Dever know about this?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Apr 10, 2010)

Kiffin said:


> Hey Pastor,
> 
> Do you make a distinction between closed and close communion? For example, if there is a visiting Baptist, would you allow them to partake?


 
No. Some say "closed" and others say "close." But they are synonymous. Historically, closed communion means limiting the ordinance to the membership and to those visiting from churches of _like faith and order_ (i.e. Baptist). A small number of Baptists in history have advocated a form of closed communion in which only the members of that local congregation are welcomed to participate. However, I do not see any biblical rationale for this. So if a Baptist brother was visiting from a sister church, he would be welcomed to the Table (respectively).

---------- Post added at 12:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 PM ----------




Marrow Man said:


> C. M. Sheffield said:
> 
> 
> > Not at all. At this point, I'm _only_ concerned with those who were sprinkled as infants and have yet to receive believer's baptism. You (and Ligon Duncan ) would be welcomed to the Table, and into membership (respectively).
> ...


 
I think he may


----------



## Sarah (Apr 22, 2010)

I have a question: When you are talking about permitting or not permitting Christians who have been baptized in a certain way or belong to a certain denomination to partake in communion, how is this carried out practically? I have never been to a church where they have been passing the communion plate around and then they have stopped and asked me my church background before handing it to me. If you don't ask the person, how do you know whether they are in your denomination or not? Do you have a little warning printed in the bulletin asking people to please not partake, or does the pastor state that you have to be a baptist (or whatever denomination)? I have never seen anything like that. Usually when I'm visiting a church I may say hello to the person beside me before the service, but any chance for someone to find out if I am a member of their denomination would generally not come until after the service. 
Just wondering, thanks.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Apr 22, 2010)

Sarah said:


> I have a question: When you are talking about permitting or not permitting Christians who have been baptized in a certain way or belong to a certain denomination to partake in communion, how is this carried out practically? I have never been to a church where they have been passing the communion plate around and then they have stopped and asked me my church background before handing it to me. If you don't ask the person, how do you know whether they are in your denomination or not? Do you have a little warning printed in the bulletin asking people to please not partake, or does the pastor state that you have to be a baptist (or whatever denomination)? I have never seen anything like that. Usually when I'm visiting a church I may say hello to the person beside me before the service, but any chance for someone to find out if I am a member of their denomination would generally not come until after the service.
> Just wondering, thanks.


 
In our church, fencing the table consists of the Minister (i.e. me) clearly articulating who may and and _may not_ participate in the ordinance. If those prohibited from partaking do so in spite of the churches injunction, their guilt is upon their own heads. 

So, no, we will not screen each individual person in an effort to discern their worthiness (as if we could finally discern their spiritual state). If we _are_ aware of a particular situation that would disqualify a member, we try to make a point of speaking to them one-on-one prior to the observance. But this would usually be within the process of church discipline. Which isn't applicable to visiting pædobaptists.

Could someone who has been told from the Table not to partake, partake? I suppose they could. But why would they? A willingness to throw off the authority of Christ by disregarding the officers of his Church in that place is certainly an indicator that something is seriously wrong.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Apr 22, 2010)

*Historic Baptist Voices on Closed Communion*

Baptist Voices on Closed Communion:



> Q 103. Who are the proper subjects of this ordinance [i.e. the Lord's Supper]?
> 
> A. They who have been baptized upon a personal profession of their faith in Jesus Christ, and repentance from dead works.
> 
> The Baptist Catechism (1695)​





> None but penitent sinners, and true believers, and those baptized, upon a profession of their repentance and faith, are to be allowed communicants at this ordinance; for such only can look to Christ whom they have pierced, and mourn, and exercise godly sorrow and evangelical repentance; such only can eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ in a spiritual sense by faith; to such only Christ’s flesh is meat indeed, and his blood drink indeed; such only can by faith discern the Lord’s body, and please him in this ordinance; for without faith it is impossible to please God; wherefore a man, before he eats, should examine himself, whether he has true repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ; whether he is truly sensible of sin, and humbled for it, and believes in Christ for the remission of it (1 Cor. 11:28; 2 Cor. 13:5).
> John Gill
> _A Body of Doctrinal & Practical Divinity pg. 922_​





> We believe that Christian Baptism is the immersion in water of a believer, into the name of the Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost; to show forth, in a solemn and beautiful emblem, our faith in the crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, with its effect in our death to sin and resurrection to a new life; that it is prerequisite to the privileges of a Church relation; and to the Lord's Supper.
> 
> The New Hampshire Baptist Confession of Faith (1833)​





> Baptism is an ordinance of the Lord Jesus, obligatory upon every believer, wherein he is immersed in water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, as a sign of his fellowship with the death and resurrection of Christ, of remission of sins, and of his giving himself up to God, to live and walk in newness of life. It is prerequisite to church fellowship, and to participation in the Lord's Supper.
> 
> The Abstract of Principles (1857)​





> When a church receives an unbaptized person, something more is done than merely to tolerate his error. There are two parties concerned. The acts of entering the church and partaking of its communion are his, and for them he is responsible. The church also acts when it admits him to membership, and authorizes his participation of the communion. The church, as an organized body, with power to receive and exclude members according to rules which Christ has laid down, is responsible for the exercise of this power. Each individual disciple of Christ is bound, for himself, to obey perfectly the will of his Master. Whatever tolerance he may exercise towards the errors of others, he should tolerate none in himself. Though he may see but a single fault in his brother, he ought, while imitating all that brother’s excellencies, carefully to avoid this fault. He may not neglect the tithing of mint, though he should find an example of such neglect accompanied with a perfect obedience of every moral precept.
> 
> When Pedobaptists complain of our strict communion, we would remind them that they hold the principle in common with us, and practice on it in their own way. If they have aught to object, let it be at that in which we differ from them, and not at that in which we agree. The contrary course is not likely to produce unity of opinion, or to promote that harmony of Christian feeling which ought to subsist among the followers of our Lord.
> 
> ...





> Since baptism is a command of Christ, it follows that we cannot properly commune with the unbaptized. To admit such to the Lord’s Supper is to give the symbol of Church fellowship to those who, in spite of the fact that they are Christian brethren, are, though perhaps unconsciously, violating the fundamental law of the Church.
> 
> To withhold protest against plain disobedience to Christ’s commands is, to that extent, to countenance such disobedience. The same disobedience which in the Church member we would denominate disorderly walking, must, a fortiori, destroy all right to the Lord’s Supper on the part of those who are not members of the Church.
> 
> ...





> Our position, then, is that the Lord's Supper is a church ordinance and not an individual matter, and that Baptists cannot consistently invite to the Lord's Supper those whom they would not admit to church membership. The stress has usually been put on the irregularity in baptism as a reason for declining to invite others to the Supper. Baptism certainly does proceed the Lord's Supper, and we believe the argument that Baptists should not invite to the Supper those whom they do not regard as baptized is a valid argument. But we believe that there are other reasons. Any departure from New Testament principles in church polity or other doctrinal beliefs that would make one ineligible to church membership makes him ineligible to the Lord's Supper. We cannot consistently admit one to the Lord's Supper and then deny him the other privileges of church membership. This does not mean that Baptists do not regard members of other religious denominations as being Christians; but it does mean that they regard them as having departed from Christian principles in some respects, and, therefore, Baptists could not admit them to church fellowship. And since the Lord's Supper is a church ordinance, one of the most sacred of the privileges of church membership, no one should be admitted to this ordinance who could not be admitted to church membership."
> 
> W. T. Conner
> _Christian Doctrine pp. 289-290_​


----------



## darrellmaurina (Apr 22, 2010)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Kiffin said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Pastor,
> ...



Rev. Sheffield: I cannot speak to Baptist uses of the word, but in the Dutch Reformed world, and also, to my knowledge, in some of the strictest parts of the Presbyterian world where table-watching is still an issue, there is a difference between "close" and "closed" communion.

The difference is that "close" means elder-supervised communion while "closed" means nobody is allowed without being a member of the denomination or (at most) a church in ecclesiastical fellowship.

Here's two examples of how that works out in practice.

If I visit a United Reformed Churches in North America congregation, which in most cases will practice close communion, I will probably have a brief interview with some or all of the elders and sign a statement affirming basics of the Christian faith. Historically a copy of the form I signed would have been mailed to my home church to tell them that I had come to communion, and thereby allow them to discipline me if I should not have done that. Elder-supervised also means that since I'm known personally to a number of URCNA pastors and elders, they might choose not to examine me on the grounds that they already know who I am and do not neeed to be formally examined. (And yes, I do know there are URCNA churches that now practice much less strict supervision of the table.) 

However, if I visit the Heritage Netherlands Reformed Congregation in Grand Rapids, even though I personally know Dr. Joel Beeke and a number of members, because I am not a member of their denomination or a church in ecclesiastical fellowship I will not be admitted to their Lord's Supper barring extraordinary circumstances.

I'm not offended in any way by either practice and the last time I visited the Grand Rapids HNRC, some of the church leaders went out of their way to re-emphasize what I already knew, namely, that their communion practice did not call my Christianity into question, but rather was following their understanding of the church order. I have no problem with that, or with URCNA practice.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Apr 22, 2010)

Darrell,

I appreciate that insight. I am aware that a small number of Reformed (proper) denominations make that distinction. However, among Baptists and many others, the words are used synonymously.

P.S. I got to meet Dr. Beeke at T4G this year! He was standing inconspicuously at the RHB book table as I broused. I had a question about _Meet The Puritans_. I asked (not knowing it was him and without looking up) if he recommended it. He replied "highly!" At which point I looked up and realized who it was. Needless to say I bought the book!


----------



## darrellmaurina (Apr 22, 2010)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> P.S. I got to meet Dr. Beeke at T4G this year! He was standing inconspicuously at the RHB book table as I broused. I had a question about _Meet The Puritans_. I asked (not knowing it was him and without looking up) if he recommended it. He replied "highly!" At which point I looked up and realized who it was. Needless to say I bought the book!


 
That is too funny! (And I don't think Dr. Beeke would mind the humor.)

It reminds me of the time that I was attending the synod of a certain Dutch Reformed denomination as a visitor and an elder who knew my name but had never met me asked if I was able to understand the proceedings of the synod. After some puzzled looks, I realized he thought I was from one of that denomination's sister-churches in a different country that doesn't speak English. The elder and I had a good laugh, after which he said something I used to hear from time to time: "You're too short to be Darrell." (Makes sense if you realize the height of Dutchmen and that I'm not Dutch.)

Anyway, have a good day... I need to move on to other matters but I didn't want to let this one pass without comment.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 22, 2010)

During my three pastorates, we ALWAYS invited visiting Christians to partake in communion (paedo or credo). With 500 in attendance on an average Sunday, it would have been difficult to say what they actually did. In the Baptist church where I am currently a member, we invite ALL professing Christians to partake without distinction to their beliefs on baptism.

Of the baptist churches where I have been a member or pastor, 1/2 reqired re-baptism of paedobaptists for membership; 1/2 did not (if they were from a Protestant church such as a Reformed one).

I would add that many/most Baptists believe that the Lord's Supper is for all Christians and typically do not exclude. Membership, however, in ALL bodies hinges upon agreement with certain denominational distinctives.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Apr 22, 2010)

DMcFadden said:


> I would add that many/most Baptists believe that the Lord's Supper is for all Christians and typically do not exclude. Membership, however, in ALL bodies hinges upon agreement with certain denominational distinctives.



Well, if we were to make a list of things that _most_ Baptist hold in common today, I'm certain we wouldn't be too eager to identify ourselves with them!

Suffice to say, open communion is not consistent with historic Baptist thought and practice (as demonstrated above).


----------



## Herald (Apr 22, 2010)

Two months ago a retired Baptist pastor from the ABA visited our church. Since the church that planted us was ABA I suspect he thought we were ABA too, which we most decidedly are not. Apparently many ABA churches practice closed communion because of their view on the universal church. Their view is that they don't believe in one. This came to light after he declined to partake of the Lord's Supper with us.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Apr 22, 2010)

Just so we're clear, 

Neither myself or the men I've quoted above arrive at the position of closed communion from any rejection of the doctrine of the universal church.


----------



## Herald (Apr 22, 2010)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Just so we're clear,
> 
> Neither myself or the men I've quoted above arrive at the position of closed communion from any rejection of the doctrine of the universal church.



Gotcha. I was just sharing a recent experience.


----------

