# Christian Unity



## Particular Baptist (Jan 21, 2010)

Recently, I've been reading Dietrich Bonhoeffer's 'The Cost of Discipleship' and I must say, his teaching has moved and confirmed some things that I've been contemplating. Bonhoeffer's passion for true discipleship and the cost of following Christ has both convicted me and encouraged me to pick up my cross daily. I could go on and on about how this book has influenced me, but the real reason I'm typing this is that, along with this book, I've had this desire swell up in me to see unity in the Church, across all denominations. I've been researching the open/closed communion debate and, after reading the Bible and examining the nature of the church, I have found myself to be on the open communion side of things. I agree with John Piper that to turn away a person who, while being a paedobaptist, still has an authentic walk with the Lord, and who is as much a child of God as I am, would be a huge mistake and sinful. Closed communion Baptists would restrict Bonhoeffer, Calvin, Edwards, and Luther from church membership because, in their eyes (as well as mine, admittedly) they have not truly been baptized. But, should we Baptists hold membership from those who hold to a different opinion than us? I would agree, those who have not been baptized by immersion have not been baptized, but should that fact bar them from membership in the visible church? I think not! 

Perhaps we all should reread Bonhoeffer's work and realize that being a Christian will cost us our lives. We must daily die and carry our Cross. We must seek him and him alone! And once we realize that he is the only object we should keep our eyes on, we find that love for our fellow BROTHERS and SISTERS in Christ should be able to overstep the bounds of the baptismal debate and allow us to worship in the same church, be members of the same church, and members of the same denomination. I firmly believe that the days are coming when the true Church will be persecuted and our denomination allegiances will matter nothing. I'm not saying that I have the perfect solution, but there needs to be a reuniting of Christians would believe in the doctrines of grace and perhaps even those, such as Lutherans, who still hold to justification by faith alone.

Spencer


----------



## jambo (Jan 21, 2010)

Thank you for this post. I know a bit about Bonhoeffer's life but have never read any of his writings. 

I am always challenged by Paul's commendation of both the Ephesian and Colossian churches of their love for ALL THE SAINTS. Do the reformed love all the saints or only the saints in the reformed camp? Likewise across the Presbyterian/Baptist debate. Some saints are a pain in the neck but just because we do not always see eye to eye we are united in the heart by the work of Christ even if there is not that same unity of mind.


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 21, 2010)

My pastor reminds visitors that they must be baptized (no specific mode), members in good standing of a Bible-believing church, and not walking in unrepentant sin. Baptists, Presbyterians, non-denominational, all are welcome as long as they meet these criterion. If that's what's meant by unity, then I stand solidly with you. I hesitate only because of having had a close view of churches that essentially believe nothing in particular so as to be "inclusive."


----------



## Kaalvenist (Jan 22, 2010)

I would argue against open communion, and for close communion -- ironically, for the same reasons.

1. We ought to seek the unity of the church; which is principally a unity in the truth. If Calvinistic or Reformed Baptists are right, and Presbyterians are in error, on the matters which divide us, then we Presbyterians are perpetuating a sinful schism in the church of Christ. By our adherence to unbiblical views of church membership, church ordinances, and church government, our very grounds of existing as denominations separate from Baptists are in error, and therefore our denominations simply ought not to exist. If we were allowed to commune in a truly constituted Baptist church, this does nothing more than recognize our existence and our grounds of separation, which should not be recognized (since they are false). It is open communion which perpetuates separation and schism in the church, not close communion.

2. Open communion tends to oppose the unity of the church in its own faith and practice, which ought to be maintained by the members of the church. If baptized members of the church ought not to be received to the Table until they profess the faith and practice of the church (and if members ought to be kept from the Table for violating the faith and practice of the church), that points to what Table fellowship ought to look like -- again, a fellowship in and around the truth. If anyone and everyone outside that church body who opposes the faith and practice of the church are admitted to the Table, regardless of whether they are a member of another church, they violate the unity in the truth professed at the Table. And admitting "communicants in good standing in any evangelical church" makes the standard of admission to the Table, not what your church requires to become a communicant, but what every other evangelical church requires.

3. Indeed, love ought to motivate us to close communion, and not to open communion -- love to Christ, love to His church, love to His truth, and love to all His saints. If your brother is in sin, is it love to gloss it over and act like there is nothing wrong? Or is it love to confront him with his sin, that he may be brought to repentance? "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him" (Lev. 19:17). Open communion is hatred toward our brethren, allowing them to continue on in sinful errors in doctrine and practice without rebuke -- indeed, with nothing more than encouragement in their course. Close communion ought to lovingly rebuke our brethren who persist in opposition to the truth, just as church discipline enacted against an erring brother ought to lovingly rebuke him.


----------

