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



## Pilgrim (Feb 24, 2009)

Although many Baptists have disagreed through the years, most Baptist statements of faith or confessions that have addressed the issue have taught that baptism is prerequisite to the Lord's Supper, thus precluding open communion (i.e. those not immersed may not partake in the Lord's Supper.) Here are a couple of examples: 

*
Appendix to the 1646 Confession of Faith by Benjamin Cox:*



> *
> *
> Though a believer’s right to the use of the Lord’s Supper doth immediately flow from Jesus Christ apprehended and received by faith, yet in as much as all things ought to be done not only decently, but also in order, 1 Cor.14:40; and the Word holds forth this order, that disciples should be baptized, Matt.28:19; Acts 2:38, and then be taught to observe all things (that is to say. all other things) that Christ commanded the Apostles, Matt.28:20, and accordingly the Apostles first baptized disciples, and then admitted them to the use of the Supper, Acts 2:41, 42; we therefore do not admit any in the use of the Supper, nor communicate with any in the use of this ordinance, but disciples having once been Scripturally baptized, less we should have fellowship with them in their doing contrary to order.



*Abstract of Principles*–Adopted at the founding of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1858:


> XV. Baptism.
> 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.



More statements on this can be found here. 

What say ye about this? Please give your reasons for your position as well.


----------



## KMK (Feb 25, 2009)

If someone has met the requirements for the LS, why haven't they been baptized? What is the delay? The fact that someone would desire the LS but refuse baptism has red flags all over it.

-----Added 2/25/2009 at 12:25:55 EST-----

BTW, who are the many Baptists who have disagreed about this?


----------



## brymaes (Feb 25, 2009)

I believe that Bunyan did not require baptism before someone would partake of the Supper.


----------



## LawrenceU (Feb 25, 2009)

I'd have to agree whole heartedly with Ken. Every time I've run across it there were serious spiritual issues afoot.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Feb 25, 2009)

I didn't respond to the poll because the question lacked specificity. On the one hand. I believe baptism is a prerequisite for membership in the new covenant community and, therefore, a prerequisite for communion. On the other hand, I believe communion or the Lord's Table should be open to all baptized persons who are members in good standing of Bible-believing churches and who are able to discern properly the significance of the meal. Practically, that means I would open the table to Paedobaptists since they affirm the necessity of baptism for entrance into the covenant community and are in fact members of true gospel churches.

Your servant,


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 25, 2009)

I also did not respond to the poll.

The Lord's Supper is for those that are the Lord's. 

If someone came to the Lord's Suppper who was saved but not baptized, they might partake...but I would be curious as to why they would be saved but not yet baptized.


The normal pattern from the NT is that one is saved, then baptized and then joins the weekly fellowship of the church, which included partaking of the Supper. 

A thing can be irregular, however, without being invalid and so I suppose deviations from the NT might be allowable.


----------



## Mayflower (Feb 25, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> If someone came to the Lord's Suppper who was saved but not baptized, they might partake...but I would be curious as to why they would be saved but not yet baptized.



Question : show me one vers in the Word of God, were non baptized believers were partaking the Lords supper ?
Answer : None, so who gives us the right and authority to go outside the order that God has given in His Word, namely conversion, baptism, church membership and Lords supper.


----------



## rescuedbyLove (Feb 25, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> I also did not respond to the poll.
> 
> The Lord's Supper is for those that are the Lord's.
> 
> ...



My mom was saved in November (of 2007), and came to our church and talked to our pastor. He scheduled her to be baptized (and to sign the church covenant) in January. She partook of the Lord's Supper once (maybe twice) before being baptized and becoming an official member of the congregation. She knew that the Lord had already made her part of the church, the body of Christ.


----------



## Hippo (Feb 25, 2009)

Not being a Baptist I have not voted but many of the comments seem to equate paedobaptism with having:



> red flags all over it.



This is quite an extreme position.


----------



## Rangerus (Feb 25, 2009)

From the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. (Current Southern Baptist Confession of Faith)



> VII. Baptism and the Lord's Supper
> 
> 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.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 25, 2009)

Mayflower said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > If someone came to the Lord's Suppper who was saved but not baptized, they might partake...but I would be curious as to why they would be saved but not yet baptized.
> ...








In the NT we see believers partaking of the Lord's Supper. We are not told whether or not they are baptized or not, but it is fair to assume that they were.


God has not given us a normative order in the NT, but the example seems to lead us to a sequence of belief, baptism, uniting with a body, and then enjoying the fellowship of that body, which included partaking of the Supper.


Again, I have already mentioned such a thing as "irregular" but is it irregular enough to bar a Christian from the Lord's Table?


----------



## KMK (Feb 25, 2009)

Hippo said:


> Not being a Baptist I have not voted but many of the comments seem to equate paedobaptism with having:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Can you give us an example where someone might, in good conscience, refuse baptism yet desire the LS?


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 25, 2009)

One possible scenario:

A believer is saved and it is evident that they are saved. It is frozen on the ground or they are in the desert. They meet soon afterwards as a church and there is no time for this new believer to be baptized and there is not water enough at this particular service to baptize the new believer. They agree to worship, partake of the Lord's Supper and then go to one of the parishioner's houses to baptise the new believer after the service.

This is one scenario where I would administer the Lord's Supper to an unbaptized believer. It is irregular, but I would hate to forbid a child of God to partake in what belongs to the children of God.


----------



## KMK (Feb 25, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> One possible scenario:
> 
> A believer is saved and it is evident that they are saved. It is frozen on the ground or they are in the desert. They meet soon afterwards as a church and there is no time for this new believer to be baptized and there is not water enough at this particular service to baptize the new believer. They agree to worship, partake of the Lord's Supper and then go to one of the parishioner's houses to baptise the new believer after the service.
> 
> This is one scenario where I would administer the Lord's Supper to an unbaptized believer. It is irregular, but I would hate to forbid a child of God to partake in what belongs to the children of God.



I would not disagree with you. But this would be an exception and not the rule. My question is, are there any justifiable grounds for a believer to refuse baptism yet desire the LS? It has been my experience that people who profess Christ yet refuse baptism have serious issues that need to be dealt with.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 25, 2009)

KMK:

Yes, I agree. 

Refusing baptism I believe would be grounds to consider one not saved or else to administer church discipline for refusing Christ's explicit commands.

However, merely getting things out of order due to unforeseen circumstances is less severe and I would want the new believer to partake as this is a great blessing to their soul.


----------



## christiana (Feb 25, 2009)

All of these rules, laws, traditions are simply that. If a believer is in the pew and desiring of the Lord's Supper when it is passed who is going to deny them? It is between their heart and the Lord. If upon listening to the scripture being read about taking the Lord's Supper unworthily then the responsibility is on them alone to be certain their heart is ready to partake.


----------



## Mayflower (Feb 25, 2009)

christiana said:


> All of these rules, laws, traditions are simply that. If a believer is in the pew and desiring of the Lord's Supper when it is passed who is going to deny them? It is between their heart and the Lord. If upon listening to the scripture being read about taking the Lord's Supper unworthily then the responsibility is on them alone to be certain their heart is ready to partake.



It is not only a individual matter like "It is between their heart and the Lord", because it is church ordinance, so what about the fact that someone is under the discipline of a local church or you have no idea if that person is a christian at all ? With the so callled open communion, were you allowed non baptized person to jion the supper, you divided something which belongs toghter in it's order namely baptism and the supper, which has no biblical support.


----------



## christiana (Feb 25, 2009)

Mayflower said:


> christiana said:
> 
> 
> > All of these rules, laws, traditions are simply that. If a believer is in the pew and desiring of the Lord's Supper when it is passed who is going to deny them? It is between their heart and the Lord. If upon listening to the scripture being read about taking the Lord's Supper unworthily then the responsibility is on them alone to be certain their heart is ready to partake.
> ...



I can see how that could present a dilemma! How is this appropriately dealt with? In open communion there is no screening that I am aware of? I do believe it it left up to the individual and his heart. Who would be worthy to decide that someone else should not be allowed the Lord's Supper! That would be a grave responsibility to take upon oneself, would it not?


----------



## Wannabee (Feb 25, 2009)

Ralph, you accuse no biblical support for negatives, but offer no positive commands. The burden is on the one who imposes, not on one who doesn't. If Scripture tells us to do something, then we do it. If it implies it, then we work through it. If it doesn't address it then we leave it to personal conscience. 

I picked "no." 

First, I would not bar a paedo baptist from the table, but do not consider them baptized unless they were baptized as believers. Their conscience is bound before God, and I consider them beloved brethren in Christ.

Second, as has been stated, I consider it a matter of conscience. 

Third, it is entirely possible for someone to be saved and have a credible testimony and, a) never have been taught properly on baptism or, b) be a new believer who has not yet had an opportunity to be baptized.

Fourth, if someone is a member of our church they must be baptized first, so it is not a disciplinary issue for us. But, if someone professed Christ and refused baptism I would strongly caution them against partaking. It might even come to the point that we would refuse them, but that's a bridge I hope to never cross.


----------



## LawrenceU (Feb 25, 2009)

> Fourth, if someone is a member of our church they must be baptized first, so it is not a disciplinary issue for us. But, if someone professed Christ and refused baptism I would strongly caution them against partaking. It might even come to the point that we would refuse them, but that's a bridge I hope to never cross.



That is the situation that I assumed we were discussing. I can see that I read into the intent of the OP.


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Feb 25, 2009)

Is the LS required for baptism? This could go in circles.


----------



## Kim G (Feb 25, 2009)

Wannabee said:


> it is entirely possible for someone to be saved and have a credible testimony and, a) never have been taught properly on baptism or, b) *be a new believer who has not yet had an opportunity to be baptized*.



I believe this would be a valid exception. At the churches I grew up in (where baptism was viewed just as a testimony that you have trusted Christ), there was no rush to fill up the baptismal pool when someone wanted to be baptised. Believers would be put off for weeks, sometimes months, while the church waited for more people to desire baptism so they could be dunked at the same time. The believers desired baptism, but were denied it until the church could be bothered to fill up the tank. I don't think they should be kept from the Lord's Supper.


----------



## toddpedlar (Feb 25, 2009)

Hippo said:


> Not being a Baptist I have not voted but many of the comments seem to equate paedobaptism with having:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm very confused by your comment, Mike. I don't see anyone questioning paedobaptism in this thread, and I certainly can't make heads or tails of your reference to Ken's comment. The 'red flags' was in reference to those who, in Baptistic circles, would not want to be (or feel 'ready to be') baptized upon their own conversion but would want to take the Lord's Supper. That kind of a position, and maintaining that position by the church leadership, would have red flags all over it.

BTW as a child in a baptist church growing up, I took the Lord's supper, with the approval of the deacons, for several years without being baptized, because the position was that baptism was a 'real commitment' and the Lord's Table was in some ways preparatory and something that if you believed you could rightly take (but then why not be baptized, as Ken has already asked). That position seems quite common among baptist (non reformed) folks that I know, and was certainly the position of my first church growing up.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 25, 2009)

brymaes said:


> I believe that Bunyan did not require baptism before someone would partake of the Supper.



That is true, but he was definitely the exception in his day and was opposed by those who were responsible for the 1st and 2nd London Confessions (Kiffin, Keach, etc.) Bunyan not only practiced open communion but open membership as well. 

I haven't studied this exhaustively by any means, but open communion among Baptists apparently became prevalent among British Baptists in the 19th Century and in the USA to varying degrees in the 20th, with it apparently becoming much more prevalent among Southern Baptists in the post WW II era.

-----Added 2/25/2009 at 10:22:44 EST-----



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I didn't respond to the poll because the question lacked specificity. On the one hand. I believe baptism is a prerequisite for membership in the new covenant community and, therefore, a prerequisite for communion. On the other hand, I believe communion or the Lord's Table should be open to all baptized persons who are members in good standing of Bible-believing churches and who are able to discern properly the significance of the meal. Practically, that means I would open the table to Paedobaptists since they affirm the necessity of baptism for entrance into the covenant community and are in fact members of true gospel churches.
> 
> Your servant,



The reference to open communion refers to the practice of some of inviting all to the table based solely on their profession of faith, regardless of whether they have been baptized or not. For example, some will allow the unimmersed Presbyterian, Anglican or Methodist to partake, etc. 

Dr. Bob, yours is the kind of practice that I want to unpack here. You wrote "communion or the Lord's Table should be open to all baptized persons who are members in good standing of Bible-believing churches and who are able to discern properly the significance of the meal." Later you write that you open the table to paedos who are able to discern rightly. But unless we concede the Presbyterian's point that "_Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person_," how can such individuals be regarded as "baptized persons," assuming they have not been immersed? 

Presbyterians do see baptism as prerequisite to the Lord's Supper, but their view of the proper mode and subjects of baptism of course is far different from what Baptists believe. Or else what was the point of that heated baptism debate we had here last summer.


----------



## Wannabee (Feb 25, 2009)

Kim G said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> > it is entirely possible for someone to be saved and have a credible testimony and, a) never have been taught properly on baptism or, b) *be a new believer who has not yet had an opportunity to be baptized*.
> ...



We have an even bigger problem - about 3 feet of ice. Our church doesn't own a baptismal. I suppose we could use someone's tub, or the pool at the Y. Perhaps we could use one in another church. Or, we could wait until summer and use a local river or Lake Michigan. There's plenty of water around here, but it's tough to get through the ice in the winter, not to mention cold.


----------



## JM (Feb 25, 2009)

A few comments from John Dagg:

Argument 1.--The Lord's supper, when instituted by Christ, was given to persons who had never received Christian baptism, and therefore baptism cannot be a prerequisite. 

The first supper was administered to the apostles. Some of these had been baptized by John; and, since the disciples made by Jesus in his personal ministry, were also baptized, we are warranted to conclude, that all the apostles had been baptized. If it be denied that John's baptism, and the baptism administered under the immediate direction of Christ during his personal ministry were Christian baptism, we call for proof. Until the distinction is established, the argument has no foundation. 

But there is another way in which the argument may be met. We have every certainty, which the nature of the case admits, that the apostles were not baptized after the institution of the Lord's supper. From this time to the ensuing Pentecost, when they entered fully on the work assigned them, their history is so given as to exclude all probability that they were baptized in this interval; and, if they were qualified to enter fully on their work, without another baptism, another baptism was unnecessary; and was therefore never afterwards received. Mr. Hall, the ablest advocate of open communion, says: "My deliberate opinion is, that, in the Christian sense of the term, they were not baptized at all."(24) When Paul was made an apostle, before he entered on his work he was commanded to be baptized. From some cause, the other apostles were not under this obligation. We account for the difference, by the supposition, that they had already received what was substantially the same as the baptism administered to Paul. But, if we are mistaken on this point, it is still true that the eleven apostles were not under obligation to receive any other baptism; and their case, therefore, differed radically from that of persons who are under obligation to be baptized, and are living in neglect of this duty. The latter may be required, and ought to be required, to profess Christ according to his commandment, before they are admitted to church-membership and communion; but the eleven apostles,es, from some cause, whatever it may have been, were under no such obligation. The cases are not parallel; and, therefore, the argument fails.

Argument 2.--The argument for strict communion, from the position of baptism in the commission, proves too much. If it proves that we ought not to teach the unbaptized to commune at the Lord's table, it proves also that we ought not to teach them the moral precepts of Christ included in the words, "all things whatsoever I have commanded you." 

The apostles were commanded to preach the gospel to every creature. In executing their commission, it became their duty to instruct the ignorant and them that were out of the way. They adapted their instructions to every man's character and circumstances To the impenitent, they said: "Repent, and be baptized." To the unbaptized disciple, they said: "Why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized." The baptized disciple they taught, according to therequirement in the commission, to observe all things whatsoever Christ had commanded. The- impenitent were not to be taught to observe all things which Christ had commanded. The advocates of open communion deny that they have a right either to baptism, or the Lord's supper; but why? The same moral precepts which are to be taught to the baptized disciple, may be taught to the impenitent. We may, therefore, retort, that if they exclude the impenitent from baptism and the Lord's supper, their mode of reasoning will prove too much, and will equally exclude them from instruction in the moral precepts of Christ. If it be just to argue from the order prescribed in the commission, that baptism belongs to those only who have been made disciples; that order equally proves, that the baptized only ought to be taught to observe all things that Christ had commanded. Some things that Christ commanded might be taught to the unbaptized, and to the impenitent; but the full observance of all Christ's commands, was to be enjoined on the baptized disciples. Had the commission read, "Make disciples of all nations, and teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you," baptism and the supper would have been included together among the things commanded, and no inference could have been drawn from the commission as to the proper order in which they should be observed. But the separation of baptism from all the other things which Christ had commanded, gives it a peculiar relation to the other things enjoined in the commission; and the order in which it is introduced cannot but signify the proper order for our obedience.​
Other arguments:

Argument 3.--The fact that, in the primitive times, none but baptized persons were admitted to the Lord's table, is not a rule to us, whose circumstances are widely different. Then, no converted person mistook his obligation to be baptized. Had he refused baptism, the refusal would have proved him not to be a disciple; and now nothing ought to exclude from communion, but that which disproves discipleship. 

Argument 4.--The supper commemorates the death of Christ: baptism represents his burial and resurrection. The order of the things signified is the reverse of that in which they are observed. Hence, the order of observance ought not to be considered necessary. 

Argument 5.--Communion at the Lord's table is a token of brotherly love. To
refuse it to any true disciple of Christ, is contrary to the spirit of brotherly 
love, and to the command of Christ which enjoined it. 

Argument 6.--A particular church differs from the church universal, only as a 
part differs from the whole; and, since Pedobaptist Christians are parts of the true church, they ought to be admitted to membership and communion in the particular churches. 

Argument 7.--To exclude a Pedobaptist brother from communion, is substantially to inflict on him the punishment of excommunication, the punishment inflicted on atrocious offenders. Such is not the proper treatment
of a fellow disciple, whose error of judgment the Lord graciously pardons. 

Argument 7.--To reject from communion a Pedobaptist brother whom God 
receives, is to violate the law of toleration laid down in Romans xiv. 1-3. 

Argument 10.--The communion table is the Lord's; and to exclude from it any of the Lord's people, the children of his family, is an offence against the whole Christian community.​
Founders Ministries | Manual of Church Order - Ch. 5


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 25, 2009)

What this thread is about is what has been termed close communion. I realize that people from different backgrounds and perhaps geographic regions have different definitions of open/close/closed communion. 

These are the definitions I work with, and these are pretty well accepted in most Baptist circles with which I am familiar: 

1. *Open communion. 
*
Anyone professing Christ is free to come to the table, whether they've been baptized or not, and sometimes without regard to church membership or lack thereof. My understanding is that most if not all independent Bible churches would hold to this view and that many of them would not require immersion as a condition of membership either. But my exposure to such churches is limited and I may be off base here or painting with too broad a brush. I know of a great many Southern Baptist churches today that would fit into this category as well. Many Calvinistic Baptists today seem to be of this opinion as well, apparently out of a desire to demonstrate their unity with Presbyterians, etc. 

Many, though not all, holding to this position however require baptism as a condition for church membership. 

2. *Closed communion*. 

Only members of that particular congregation may come to the table, or perhaps that particular denomination or association.

3. *Close communion*. 

A more nebulous category that basically includes everything else in between. This would include churches like the one to which I currently belong which restricts communion to baptized (immersed) believers, which it seems to me is at a minimum what a baptistic church would have to do to be in conformity with the idea that (water) baptism is prerequisite to the Lord's Supper. Others will restrict the table to professing believers who are members of churches of "like faith and order" (or practice). See the following for an expression of that view and one that also defines open
communion as I have above:
Why Close Communion And Not Open Communion - By O. L. Hailey


I have never seen an argument for open communion that didn't appear to me to be based on emotion and/or what appears to be a desire in my opinion to demonstrate unity at the expense of truth (e.g. the definition of a baptized believer.) I've never seen one based on the Scriptures, although I'm soliciting arguments now. It may well be that I have missed something here. 

A full blown open membership position such as Bunyan's, the 19th century English Baptist Robert Hall's or the proposal made by John Piper a few years ago would seem to be more consistent than open communion/restricted membership. The latter was Spurgeon's practice, and he took some heat from the Strict Baptists of his day over his practice. But I have seen several statements from Spurgeon later in his ministry that indicate that if he had it to do over again and was starting a new church, that he would have practiced close communion as the Southern Baptists of his day did. 

This is basically _the _issue that would keep me Southern Baptist since most independent churches and other alternatives with which I am familiar practice open communion or would at least allow unbaptized paedo brethren of like mind on soteriology to come to the table. I really have no idea what percentage of SBC churches practice open communion. But even if it is the majority today, the Southern Baptist confessions clearly teach close communion, as does every English Baptist confession that addresses the issue. The 1689 does not appear to address this question directly, but English Particular Baptist confessions before (1st LBCF) and since (Gill) do.


----------



## JM (Feb 25, 2009)

The Strict Baptist Historical Society : Who are the Strict Baptists?

The term *Strict* refers to their practice of 'restricted communion'. Many evangelical churches in the West invite 'all who love the Lord Jesus Christ' to take the bread and wine at the Lord's Table. Strict Baptists, like many other groups of Baptist churches elsewhere in the world, believe that this privilege should be offered only to those who have been baptised by immersion as believers. (This was the practice of most Baptist churches in Britain during the 17th and 18th centuries.) Some go further and invite only those belonging to Baptist churches, or to churches holding the same understanding of Christian faith and church order, or only those belonging to that particular local church.

Restricting communion in this way does not imply that those who are not admitted are not Christians; rather, it follows from Strict Baptist beliefs about the church, baptism and the Lord's Supper. Strict Baptists see baptism as a rite by which believers testify to their faith in Christ, and associate it with church membership. The Lord's Supper is for those who have joined the church in this way.​
Strict and Particular Baptists [www.the-faith.org.uk]

They are known as *Strict & Particular Baptists* because they believe that the Lord's Supper is a Divine Ordinance which is celebrated within a Congregation comprised of saved, immersed, believers seeking to live, and serve God, in a manner that is set out in the New Testament. The term 'Strict' may not always be applied but is normally implied. That is, these brethren are often known as Particular Baptists. See Articles of Faith, Para. 15,​


----------



## Hippo (Feb 25, 2009)

KMK said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> > Not being a Baptist I have not voted but many of the comments seem to equate paedobaptism with having:
> ...



Because they believe that they have already been baptised.

-----Added 2/25/2009 at 01:43:14 EST-----



toddpedlar said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> > Not being a Baptist I have not voted but many of the comments seem to equate paedobaptism with having:
> ...



There is no obvious distinction between paedo's and baptists on whether baptism is a prerequisite for the Lords Supper apart from a disagreement over what constitutes baptism. This poll is stated to be for baptists only therefore it is logical (and indeed necessary) to consider the position of those baptised by sprinkling when adressing the poll. 

In post 24 Chris repeats his position (which is a matter of record, and as he points out is the historic confessional baptist position) that



> unless we concede the Presbyterian's point that "Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person," how can such individuals be regarded as "baptized persons," assuming they have not been immersed?



I therefore feel that my query was both relevant and reasonable. It is a real problem that we can often talk past each other in these debates, when a baptist says that someone is not baptised we cannot assume that he is not including those baptised by sprinkling, and indeed the form of this poll pretty much precludes such an assumption.

I think that it is possible that baptists may have been answering differnt questions in this poll, for instance your understanding of the poll appears to differ from Chris's


----------



## KMK (Feb 25, 2009)

Hippo said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Hippo said:
> ...



????


----------



## Jon 316 (Feb 25, 2009)

it should be.


----------



## KMK (Feb 25, 2009)

It appears I misunderstood the question from the beginning. I assumed the question was concerned about those who profess but refuse baptism. It has been my experience that pastors need to deal with the reasons behind their refusal and not just ignore the problem and go on our merry way and act like nothing is wrong.

I agree with Pastor Joe in that I would not necessarily withhold the LS from a paedo.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 25, 2009)

Of course, I relinquished my vast powers of dictatorship on the PuritanBoard when I stepped aside as moderator several months ago. So I can't just drop the hammer  and post a moderator note here. 

But please note that the poll is for *Baptists Only*. I am trying to have an "intramural" discussion here among those who believe the only valid baptism is that of professing believers only and that the only valid "mode" is by immersion. 

One person is commenting in this thread who is clearly not a Baptist. Another member voted in the poll who made clear his abandonment of Baptist principles not long ago. However, I don't have a problem with Todd's interaction since he was merely relating what he has witnessed in Baptist churches nor with Bryan's since he was simply stating Bunyan's practice. 

If non Baptists want to start a thread about how mean or sectarian Baptists are, then please do so but that's not the purpose of this thread and I respectfully ask that this thread be kept free from those discussions. 

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



KMK said:


> It appears I misunderstood the question from the beginning. I assumed the question was concerned about those who profess but refuse baptism. It has been my experience that pastors need to deal with the reasons behind their refusal and not just ignore the problem and go on our merry way and act like nothing is wrong.
> 
> I agree with Pastor Joe in that I would not necessarily withhold the LS from a paedo.



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

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

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



christiana said:


> Mayflower said:
> 
> 
> > christiana said:
> ...



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

Personally I would favor a verbal warning that sets forth the congregation's practice (similar to how it is done in the OPC) rather than the leaders or elders attempting to examine people individually in order to approve them. The latter method in my opinion is largely unworkable if you ever expect to have many visitors.


----------



## LawrenceU (Feb 25, 2009)

> Of course, I relinquished my vast powers of dictatorship on the PuritanBoard when I stepped aside as moderator several months ago. So I can't just drop the hammer and post a moderator note here.
> 
> But please note that the poll is for Baptists Only. I am trying to have an "intramural" discussion here among those who believe the only valid baptism is that of professing believers only and that the only valid "mode" is by immersion.
> 
> ...



I wondered what was going on myself. Sort of miss that Mod status sometimes, huh?


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 25, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> > Of course, I relinquished my vast powers of dictatorship on the PuritanBoard when I stepped aside as moderator several months ago. So I can't just drop the hammer and post a moderator note here.
> >
> > But please note that the poll is for Baptists Only. I am trying to have an "intramural" discussion here among those who believe the only valid baptism is that of professing believers only and that the only valid "mode" is by immersion.
> >
> ...



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


----------



## Hippo (Feb 25, 2009)

> If non Baptists want to start a thread about how mean or sectarian Baptists are, then please do so but that's not the purpose of this thread and I respectfully ask that this thread be kept free from those discussions



Why not post it in the Credo Baptist only section then?

I never made any comment that even touched on sectarianism, merely queried your suggestion that your paedo brethren's views had "red flags all over it".


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 25, 2009)

Hippo said:


> > If non Baptists want to start a thread about how mean or sectarian Baptists are, then please do so but that's not the purpose of this thread and I respectfully ask that this thread be kept free from those discussions
> 
> 
> Why not post it in the Credo Baptist only section then?
> ...



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

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

However, maybe Credo Answers is the best place for this thread after all since that forum is restricted to credos, and because of the tendency some have of posting before reading. Of course I've _never_ been guilty of that....


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Feb 25, 2009)

Pilgrim said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't respond to the poll because the question lacked specificity. On the one hand. I believe baptism is a prerequisite for membership in the new covenant community and, therefore, a prerequisite for communion. On the other hand, I believe communion or the Lord's Table should be open to all baptized persons who are members in good standing of Bible-believing churches and who are able to discern properly the significance of the meal. Practically, that means I would open the table to Paedobaptists since they affirm the necessity of baptism for entrance into the covenant community and are in fact members of true gospel churches.
> ...



Chris,

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

So here's my syllogism:

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

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

Your servant,


----------



## Herald (Feb 25, 2009)

Hey, James Farley - you're no longer a Baptist. Why did you vote?


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 25, 2009)

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

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

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

Looking back, I'm not sure that our practice was completely congruent with our theology back then, even without my more recent questions regarding paedo baptism.


----------



## Herald (Feb 25, 2009)

As far as I'm concerned, baptism is the first act of obedience for a new Christian. In my church I would administer baptism with all haste after a professed conversion, and thus make the new believer eligible to partake of the Lord's Supper.


----------



## LawrenceU (Feb 25, 2009)

I agree with Bill on this. I've never understood the waiting for ever to get a group of people together for a baptism service. You sure don't see that in Scripture. I have a friend in Siberia, the really cold part. They baptise in the dead of winter. They will use a tub, pool, tank, whatever they can find.

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


----------



## Herald (Feb 25, 2009)

Pilgrim said:


> What this thread is about is what has been termed close communion. I realize that people from different backgrounds and perhaps geographic regions have different definitions of open/close/closed communion.
> 
> These are the definitions I work with, and these are pretty well accepted in most Baptist circles with which I am familiar:
> 
> ...



I think it's possible to have a modified closed communion. Here is the invitation and warning I give when I am presiding:

"The Lord's Table is open to all members and visitors who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ, have been scripturally baptized and, after examining themselves, have repented of any known sin. In addition, I implore those who are not believers in our Lord Jesus Christ, those who profess Christ, and are in open and defiant sin or under ongoing church discipline, not to partake of the table, but first be reconciled to Christ and then come and partake." 

This manner of "closed" communion does not prohibit visitors from partaking of the table.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 25, 2009)

Herald said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > What this thread is about is what has been termed close communion. I realize that people from different backgrounds and perhaps geographic regions have different definitions of open/close/closed communion.
> ...



This is what I would term "close" communion, category 3 above, and is basically the practice of our church as well. Some churches that practice "close communion" keep it closer than others, for example requiring membership in a church of "like faith and order," etc.


----------



## feunekes (Feb 26, 2009)

You could ask is baptism a prerequisite to be saved?
Is professing of faith a prerequisite to be saved?

The bible clearly states "they believed and where baptized", don't wait with baptism. It's like saying I'll marry you we'll live together but lets wait with the wedding.
Baptism it's a sign and a seal, you saying to the Lord "Lord I know I'm a child of you", lets seal it!!! 

Baptism the sign and seal of believing / professingof faith and believing / professing of faith is a prerequisite for LS.

I'm not a baptist. I'm a believer, baptized and professing. I do belief in discipline which means shielding of the Lords table.

HWF


----------



## Wannabee (Feb 26, 2009)

I'm sorry this is a bit off topic Chris, but a lot of postulations are being thrown about without doctrinal support. Apparently, by pointing out that we would wait until water thaws here we are disobedient. We have an example of what happened in Scripture. But we have many examples that don't fit today. The same theology that says "those who were saved in the NT were baptized right away" must then say, "those who were saved in the NT spoke in tongues right away" and "we must cast lots to determine church leadership." Perhaps we should use Phillip as the norm, and the one doing the baptism must vanish in order for it to be "official." Let's be careful not to impose our understanding on God's Word. Do we have one example in Scripture of baptism in cold climes? Does God *dictate* immediate baptism upon profession? Who's imposing upon whom?


----------



## LawrenceU (Feb 26, 2009)

Joe, I was not indicting you. You know me better than that. Your arguments in the post above are not sound. We have examples of 'normal' circumstance in each of those areas. Miraculous manifestation did not always occur at baptism in the NT. We also see church leadership appointed apart from the casting of lots. And, note that I did not say that the Christians who were behind the Iron Curtain felt compelled to be baptised because of textual argument. It was because of love for their Saviour. And, they didn't always chop the ice to get it done in the winter. I also noted that they would find enough water somewhere to get it done by using tubs, tanks, pools, etc. One group in used the public pool. It was covered. They would go their to 'swim' and use the Communists own pool to baptise. We could do the same (becoming resourceful). 

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


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 26, 2009)

If waiting periods for baptism are so bad, why is it that very very early in church history the early church had catechumens and extensive waiting periods? 

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


----------



## KMK (Feb 26, 2009)

feunekes said:


> You could ask is baptism a prerequisite to be saved?
> Is professing of faith a prerequisite to be saved?
> 
> The bible clearly states "they believed and where baptized", don't wait with baptism. It's like saying I'll marry you we'll live together but lets wait with the wedding.
> ...



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

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



> LBC 28:1 Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a *sign* of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.


----------



## Wannabee (Feb 26, 2009)

Thanks Lawrence. I agree with what you're saying. Obviously I pushed the examples to make a point. However, your earlier statements made it sound like a matter of obedience, as though descriptive Scripture holds the same directive as prescriptive Scripture. As I noted in my post, we could us the Y. But, on the other hand, it is a special moment. Each person does it once, unlike the LS. Furthermore, as a matter of dealing with our prevalent easy believism and soft Gospel decisionism I would not be ready to baptize someone who came to me and said they were ready. It would take a time of confirmation in order to discern whether or not they understood the Gospel. Much of the problem is that most people divorce baptism from the Gospel, when in fact it is inherent in the Gospel. The Ethiopian eunuch knew that. But, that's probably for another thread. Thanks for your patience Chris. Apparently it's not just paedos who distract from the purpose of the OP.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Feb 26, 2009)

Pilgrim said:


> > 1. *Open communion.
> > *
> > Anyone professing Christ is free to come to the table, whether they've been baptized or not, and sometimes without regard to church membership or lack thereof. My understanding is that most if not all independent Bible churches would hold to this view and that many of them would not require immersion as a condition of membership either. But my exposure to such churches is limited and I may be off base here or painting with too broad a brush. I know of a great many Southern Baptist churches today that would fit into this category as well. Many Calvinistic Baptists today seem to be of this opinion as well, apparently out of a desire to demonstrate their unity with Presbyterians, etc.
> >
> ...


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 26, 2009)

Wannabee said:


> Thanks Lawrence. I agree with what you're saying. Obviously I pushed the examples to make a point. However, your earlier statements made it sound like a matter of obedience, as though descriptive Scripture holds the same directive as prescriptive Scripture. As I noted in my post, we could us the Y. But, on the other hand, it is a special moment. Each person does it once, unlike the LS. Furthermore, as a matter of dealing with our prevalent easy believism and soft Gospel decisionism I would not be ready to baptize someone who came to me and said they were ready. It would take a time of confirmation in order to discern whether or not they understood the Gospel. Much of the problem is that most people divorce baptism from the Gospel, when in fact it is inherent in the Gospel. The Ethiopian eunuch knew that. But, that's probably for another thread. Thanks for your patience Chris. Apparently it's not just paedos who distract from the purpose of the OP.



Joe,

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

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

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



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > > 1. *Open communion.
> ...


----------

