# Baptist view of the Lord's Supper given to the unbaptized



## toddpedlar (Feb 11, 2006)

The subject line says it all. 

In most baptist churches that I am aware of, it is normal practice for the Lord's Supper to be explicitly offered to both baptized and non-baptized alike. Those who "believe" are told they can partake, and in cases I'm familiar with, baptism isn't even mentioned. I'm wondering about the history of this practice, and whether there are any calvinistic baptist brethren here who can tell me about this from their point of view - I'm assuming they reject it? 

At any rate, I find this an amazing departure from what is in my view clearly Biblical - the requirement of baptism prior to communing with the church. I just don't understand how the contrary can be maintained. It seems that if one is offering the Lord's Supper to the unbaptized, but warning them that they must truly be trusting in Christ if they are to partake, is catamount to denying baptism to those who ought to be baptized, in addition to opening the sacrament to those who have not had the initiatory covenant sign placed upon them.

Thoughts?

Todd


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 11, 2006)

Todd,
The sacrament of baptism outside of presbyterian circles is not seen as a sacrament, but an outward profession of what was accomplished by the HS already.


----------



## youthevang (Feb 11, 2006)

I am speaking as a former Baptist but someone should correct me if I am wrong. The Southern Baptist have a document called the Baptist Faith and Message that can be viewed on their website. I think it was in 2000 when the BFM was updated to only allow those who are baptized Christians (meaning by believer's baptism) to partake of the Lord's Supper. Which means (and this happend with my friend who was attending our church) that a presbyterian could not partake of the Lord's Supper.

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by youthevang]


----------



## toddpedlar (Feb 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Todd,
> The sacrament of baptism outside of presbyterian circles is not seen as a sacrament, but an outward profession of what was accomplished by the HS already.



Hi Scott - 

Yes, I understand this - but this is not (I believe) historically the case with baptists. Even if it is seen as an outward profession of what was accomplished by the HS inwardly, there is no reason why the unbaptized should be admitted to the Lord's Table in baptist churches. I'm wondering when this practice began, because I would be shocked to discover that it ws any older than a couple hundred years or so. My guess is that it came in with 19th century revivalism... but any other info anyone can provide would be appreciated.

Todd


----------



## Steve Owen (Feb 11, 2006)

Hello Todd,
You wrote:-


> I'm wondering when this practice began, because I would be shocked to discover that it ws any older than a couple hundred years or so. My guess is that it came in with 19th century revivalism... but any other info anyone can provide would be appreciated.


Prepare to be shocked, brother, because the practice goes back to John Bunyan.  Strict Baptist churches require that all communicants have been scripturally baptized, but for me, God forbid that I should keep any child of God from His table over the question of baptism.

Martin


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Hello Todd,
> You wrote:-
> 
> ...



It does go back to Bunyan. Baptists are left with only two choices:

1. Declare that all those who have not undergone adult baptism by immersion are unbelievers and not a part of the Church of God (Hiscox and most baptists until the 20th century)

or

2. Ignore the requirement for baptism (Bunyan and most post-20th century baptists)

The obvious third option is almost never taken (witness the furor at Piper's church): accept an non-immersive adult baptism as a baptism.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by youthevang_
> I am speaking as a former Baptist but someone should correct me if I am wrong. The Southern Baptist have a document called the Baptist Faith and Message that can be viewed on their website. I think it was in 2000 when the BFM was updated to only allow those who are baptized Christians (meaning by believer's baptism) to partake of the Lord's Supper. Which means (and this happend with my friend who was attending our church) that a presbyterian could not partake of the Lord's Supper.
> 
> [Edited on 2-11-2006 by youthevang]



Brother,

I believe this in fact is wrong. To my knowledge the BF&M was not changed at all regarding baptism. Now the church you attended may well have changed its practice. One thing is for sure, Baptist churches are actually far more lenient today in basically practicing open communion. In the 19th and probably well into the 20th century, closed communion was a key Baptist distinctive, where only those who had been baptized by immersion were allowed at the Lord's table


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 11, 2006)

Even if the BFM was changed or not is meaningless because the churches of the SBC don't have to follow it (to my knowledge).


----------



## toddpedlar (Feb 11, 2006)

I'm wondering if people have missed my point.

My question is when did the practice of NOT being concerned about whether someone was baptized or not before offering them the Lord's Supper begin? 

I ask in part, remembering when I was growing up in a baptist church that for a few years I partook of the Lord's Supper, and was never (in that church) baptized. My baptism came when my family became members of a conservative Lutheran congregation - at that time, my parents took membership vows, and I and my brother (12 and 8) were baptized on the spot. 

Martin, when you make reference to "the practice" going on in the time of John Bunyan, are you referring to the practice of barring from the table all those the church did not consider to be scripturally Baptized? I'm not shocked by that at all - that's precisely what I expected that baptists then did. What I would be shocked by is the loose treatment that characterizes many modern baptist churches in admitting essentially anyone to the table. In many ways what we see the Lord's supper functioning as the only real ordinance. People are invited to take communion if they believe in Jesus, but I've rarely heard people invited to be baptized if they believe in Jesus. So, people can functionally live for years in such churches, taking communion, (unworthily In my humble opinion), but never be pressed to undergo baptism. 

Todd


----------



## toddpedlar (Feb 11, 2006)

Honestly, while I have serious problems with the non-acceptance of infant baptism as valid by baptist churches, I applaud their consistency if they bar the "unbaptized" (whether actually unbaptized, or unbaptized in their view of baptism) from the Table. 

Todd


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by toddpedlar_
> I'm wondering if people have missed my point.
> 
> My question is when did the practice of NOT being concerned about whether someone was baptized or not before offering them the Lord's Supper begin?
> ...



Todd, I think this practice became widespread at some point in the 20th century but appears to be generally rare prior to that. The SBC book "Baptist Why and Why Not" published in 1900 and edited by J.M. Frost defends close communion (and monergism too), leading one to believe that was the default position at the time. http://elbourne.org/baptist/whybaptist/ 

To the Baptist mind of course, a baptism not by immersion is not baptism at all. You are also correct that it is more consistent to bar those not immersed from the table. But churches that do that today are few and far between, other than various Landmark churches. Spurgeon took some heat in his day for admitting Anglicans and others to the table who had not been immersed. Bunyan's view was and is rare. He did not consider baptism to be the admitting point into the church, but rather a profession of faith. This has been discussed at length in several recent threads on this board. 

I have witnessed a loose and at times inconsistent practice in a couple of Preybyterian churches in my area too. (And by Presbyterian I don't mean PCUSA either). One church gives a verbal warning, but allows (whether knowingly or unknowingly I don't know) unbaptized children to partake. The other restricts it to those who are "members in good standing of a Bible believing church" to partake, but in application this is inconsistent. For example, there are at least a few regular attenders who take communion there who have been attending for years without ever joining the church. While the churches they came from may consider them to be "members in good standing", it certainly isn't membership in good standing by our standards. Such individuals seemingly want the priviliges of church membership but not the responsibility and discipline. Individials who don't hold current church membership are barred simply because their name isn't on a roll somewhere (which is about all they require in practice if not theory). The session likely set this rule thinking that those attending regularly would join before long (and also allowing visitors from out of town to partake, etc.) without realizing how this policy could be abused by those who regularly attend but do not seek membership. I realize this is not exactly "on point" but I bring it up to show that Presbyterians, even confessional ones, are often inconsistent too. 

Whether it's Baptist or Presbyterian churches, it seems for many, the bar for admittance to the Lord's Supper is lower than that for church membership. It is understandable (as Martin pointed out above) why this is so, since many see it being in the interest of charity. But with that being the case, why should anyone join the church since that brings you under the jurisdiction of the church whereas you can basically have all the benefits of membership, including the Lord's Supper, without the responsibility if you just attend regularly.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by toddpedlar_
> I'm wondering if people have missed my point.
> 
> My question is when did the practice of NOT being concerned about whether someone was baptized or not before offering them the Lord's Supper begin?
> ...



Todd,

I agree with Chris Poe, that the practice started (widespread at least) in the 20th century. I think it was a result of the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy, in which Bible-believing Baptists (and Presbyterians, and Methodists, etc) found themselves realigned. No longer wasit strictly Baptists vs. Presbyterians vs. Methodists etc., but it was evangelical, Bible-believing Baptists, Presbyterians & Methodists, etc. vs. liberal (unbelieving) Baptists, Presbyterians & Methodists. So something had to be done to remove that one barrier to fellowship and cooperation. It may hbave been different in Britain, but in the U.S., Bunyan's view was a decided minority (well-nigh until inexistence) before the 1900s.

Evidence of this can be seen from Hiscox's Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches, published initially in 1894(!):



> Nearly all Baptists in the United States, and a large part of those in foreign lands, are _strict_ communion in practice (Hiscox, 448)
> 
> The second class of open-communonists assert that the ordinances sustain no necessary relation to each other; that baptism can claim no priority over the Supper, and, therefore, it is not a condition, nor prerequisite to it. Consequently, unbaptized persons, if believers - for they do make _faith_ a condition - may partake of the Supper as lawfully baptized persons. Therefore immersion or sprinkling, either or neither, is equally indifferent. This theory virtually denies the memorial and symbolic character of the ordinance...this course of argument, however plausible, is rejected and condemned by the great body of Christians the world over, both Baptists and PedoBaptists. (Hiscox 449)


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 11, 2006)

I agree with Fred that the fundamentalist/modernist controversy probably had a lot to do with it since there was sort of a realignment and deemphasis of denominational differences in favor of para-church type ministries in some cases.


----------



## toddpedlar (Feb 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> I agree with Fred that the fundamentalist/modernist controversy probably had a lot to do with it since there was sort of a realignment and deemphasis of denominational differences in favor of para-church type ministries in some cases.



Ah, sure, that would have fueled it too. Guess that's another
good reason that the Hart bio of Machen will be arriving soon at
my door. 

Todd


----------



## Steve Owen (Feb 11, 2006)

In Britain, Strict and 'open' Baptists have traditionally been split about 50-50, I think. More recently, there have been a number of new Reformed Baptist churches springing up, and these do not usually call themselves 'Baptist' because they hold to the 5 _solas_ as their first priority rather than baptism. It was the more liberal,_ Baptist Union_ churches that made Baptism their major distinctive feature, though now they are so liberal that they have no distinctives at all!

The church I currently attend (see below) is a 1689 Confession church and firmly baptistic, but it welcomes all true believers to the Lord's Supper. Since we shall all be eating together at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Isaiah 25:6-9 ), we might just as well get on with it now. This was Bunyan's stance, which he held against Kiffin and others. 

Martin


----------



## refbaptdude (Feb 11, 2006)

A number of Reformed Baptist do hold to the position that the Lord´s Supper and Baptism are sacraments. We do not allow unbaptized individuals to participate in the sacrament and we define valid baptism as credo baptism by immersion. 

Grace to all,
Steve Clevenger, Pastor
Covenant Baptist Church
Warrenton, VA
www.covenantbc.org
www.reformedbaptistfellowship.org

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by refbaptdude]

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by refbaptdude]


----------



## toddpedlar (Feb 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> The church I currently attend (see below) is a 1689 Confession church and firmly baptistic, but it welcomes all true believers to the Lord's Supper. Since we shall all be eating together at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Isaiah 25:6-9 ), we might just as well get on with it now. This was Bunyan's stance, which he held against Kiffin and others.
> 
> Martin



Hi Martin -

Putting aside the question of those who were baptized as infants vs. those who are not baptized at all - let's just deal with those who aren't baptized in any form. Why should they not be encouraged to be baptized first, if they claim faith in Christ?

Todd


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by toddpedlar_
> The subject line says it all.
> 
> In most baptist churches that I am aware of, it is normal practice for the Lord's Supper to be explicitly offered to both baptized and non-baptized alike. Those who "believe" are told they can partake, and in cases I'm familiar with, baptism isn't even mentioned. I'm wondering about the history of this practice, and whether there are any calvinistic baptist brethren here who can tell me about this from their point of view - I'm assuming they reject it?
> ...



Todd, check the writings of John Bunyan. He was a strong opponent to the notion that baptism must precede church membership or communion. Start with "A Confession of my Faith and a Reason for my Practice" then proceed to "Water Baptism, No Bar" then finally, "Peaceable Principles and True."
(However, for the sake of historical accuracy, John Bunyan wasn't the one who started the practice... his church had a policy of open membership/communion prior to Bunyan becoming the pastor... Bunyan just wrote the defense!)

I just wrote a major paper on this issue, so if you have any particular questions about the arguments (on both sides) let me know...

The notion of "open communion" carries the day in most evangelical churches. For instance, consider the two most common systematic theology texts used in evangelical schools: Grudem specifically repudiates the notion that baptism must precede communion. (He argues along the same lines as Bunyan, though not quite as well.) Erickson implicitly excludes baptism as a prerequisite to communion when he simply declares that confession of faith is the requirement for admittance to the Lord's table.
I remember the first time I learned that Baptists require baptism before communion... I thought, "how legalistic!" Now I know that it is just standard, historic Christian practice!

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 11, 2006)

With all due respect to Bunyan, admitting the unbaptized to the covenant renewal feast is morally wrong and dangerous for the unbaptized. That unbaptized person may or may not be elect. They may or may not trust Christ. The church, however, can only deal with profession of faith, i.e., what is "knowable." We don't know, a priori, whether a person is elect or reprobate. We only know whether a person makes a credible profession and whether they live congruently with that profession. 

To admit an unbaptized person is tantamount to admitting an unbeliever. A private person is not competent to judge his own profession or his neighbor's. That's the job of the consistory/session. 

This is why Reformed theology has always distinguished between covenant initiation and covenant renewal. That some (Baptists or other) admit folk to the covenant renewal feast/Lord's Table is evidence of significant confusion on this point.

If a person is unbaptized, how are they prepared to approach the Holy Table? How can anyone have any confidence that they meet the test of 1 Cor 11? 

Further, and more fundamentally, the Supper is not the sign of initiation into the covenant of grace, baptism is. It's this confusion of initiation and renewal that is at the heart of paedocommunion. That's why I say that the paedocommunionists are really crypto-Baptists with a medieval pretense!

Only one who make a credible profession, i.e., who is judged by the consistory/session to live in accordance with their profession is eligible to renew the covenant into to which they were formally entered in baptism. To be sure, the sacraments do not create the covenant of grace (contra the FV) but neither are they inconsequential. As others have suggested, the earliest church fathers could not imagine that one would be allowed to the table without the sign and seal of covenant imitation and appropriate catechesis.

This problem also illustrates that there is much more to being Reformed than confessing predestination. It is an entire, coherent system of theology, ethics, piety, practice. 

rsc


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 11, 2006)

Would it not be heretical to admit unbaptized people to the Church for both membership and communion? The Apostles and Nicean Creeds, along with Ephesians (one faith, one baptism) come to mind immediately.


----------



## Steve Owen (Feb 12, 2006)

Todd asked:-


> Hi Martin -
> 
> Putting aside the question of those who were baptized as infants vs. those who are not baptized at all - let's just deal with those who aren't baptized in any form. Why should they not be encouraged to be baptized first, if they claim faith in Christ?


Absolutely! The NT knows nothing about the unbaptized Christian. People trusted in Christ and were baptized. Of the major Christian denominations, only the Salvation Army, to the best of my knowledge, do not practise water baptism.

However, water baptism is not _of the esence_ of Christian conversion. Abel knew nothing of baptism or circumcision, yet his faith was pleasing to God and he still speaks to us today Heb 11 ). I, and those who follow Bunyan in this matter, do not wish to ban true believers who have not been scripturally baptized from receiving the Lord's Supper. We do 'fence the table' against unbelievers, but not against believing Anglicans or others to whom we would wish to hold out the right hand of friendship.

However, I fully respect Steve Clevenger's position. It is for individual congregations to seek the Lord's will on this matter.

Martin


----------



## cupotea (Feb 12, 2006)

> Further, and more fundamentally, the Supper is not the sign of initiation into the covenant of grace, baptism is. It's this confusion of initiation and renewal that is at the heart of paedocommunion.



Excellent point.

There was a time when I thought paedocommunion was acceptable. But after studying the character, nature, and purpose of the sacraments, I had to completely change my stance. Your comment re the confusion of initiation and renewal is exactly at the heart of the issue. This confusion has been propagated at liberal, mainline seminaries (e.g., Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg ... when I went) for years, but now appears to be infecting other, previously more solid, institutions.

In Christ's Name,
Kevin

P.S. Staying home today. Everything cancelled today because of east coast snows. So family devotions rather than congregational worship.


----------



## toddpedlar (Feb 12, 2006)

Thanks for your comments, all. 

This is an issue that I find very interesting, and thank you, Scott (Clark) for your comments - this is indeed a dangerous practice. I am particularly amazed that churches will require some sort of confession of faith (i.e. they at least do expect that partakers of the Supper be professing Christians) but are in such a rush to get them to the table, that they do not require that they be Baptized first. As you noted, I've heard pastors say "and if you have just come to a decision to put your faith in Christ, join us at the table" - almost Stoddard-esque (although this would not be for the purpose of conversion, but almost as a stamp of approval on it, as you said - a replacement initiatory rite). Why, if there is a credible profession of faith, are these allowed to the table but not encouraged to be Baptized first? Are our sensibilities about being accomodating trumping the Biblical picture? I think so. One of the effects this has, i think, is the putting off of baptism for some - perhaps indefinitely. 

I'm truly I'm intrigued by Bunyan's stance on this. Unfortunately his are a set of works I don't have - but perhaps I can find the relevant material online. I'd be curious about whether his stance is what it is because he was trying to accommodate those who had been baptized as infants, but weren't baptized in the credo-immersion sense. Is his stance of this nature (in which he would be accepting an infant baptism as valid) or is it more like the modern "if they credibly profess Christ they are admissible, with or without any baptism"? There's a slight difference between these, and I wonder which his view resembles.

Blessings to all on this Lord's Day, and particularly to those along the Eastern seaboard - stay safe and warm.


----------



## toddpedlar (Feb 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> I just wrote a major paper on this issue, so if you have any particular questions about the arguments (on both sides) let me know...
> [Edited on 2-11-2006 by SolaScriptura]



Hi Ben -

Would you be willing to send a copy of that paper? I'd love to see your discussion in full 

Todd


----------



## Philip A (Feb 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by toddpedlar_
> Hi Ben -
> 
> Would you be willing to send a copy of that paper? I'd love to see your discussion in full
> ...



Ben,

If you're making it available, I'd like a copy too!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Would it not be heretical to admit unbaptized people to the Church for both membership and communion? The Apostles and Nicean Creeds, along with Ephesians (one faith, one baptism) come to mind immediately.


----------



## Ivan (Feb 12, 2006)

In my past experience with Southern Baptist churches, which is for almost 50 years, I've seen the whole range of beliefs. The church I grew up in a church where the Lord's Supper was offered ONLY to the local church members. During times of observance vistors were asked to leave the church! I think my home church has moderated a bit since then. 

I've seen Southern Baptist churches offer the Lord's Supper to EVERYONE in attendance, regardless of being baptized or professing faith in Christ or any other standard. Scary.

I think for the most part Southern Baptist churches these days offer the Lord's Supper to all who profess faith in Christ, whether baptized or not (but I think most of the churches make an assumption, whether right or wrong, that profession includes baptism....bad assumption)....but don't hold me to that! 

Obviously there is a very wide range of practices among Baptists in general and Southern Baptists in particular.


----------



## Steve Owen (Feb 12, 2006)

Todd wrote:-


> I am particularly amazed that churches will require some sort of confession of faith (i.e. they at least do expect that partakers of the Supper be professing Christians) but are in such a rush to get them to the table, that they do not require that they be Baptized first.



Perhaps I haven't been as clear as I should have been. There is clearly something strange going on when someone professes faith in Christ and yet is unwilling to follow His command to be baptized. It should not be the case that someone can receive the Lord's Supper week after week when they have not been baptized.

However, you must realise that in Baptist understanding, infant baptism is no baptism at all. Someone who has been 'christened' as an infant is no different to somebody who has never been baptized. Yet we do not wish to prevent visitors to the church, who may be evangelical Anglicans and true believers, to be excluded from the Lord's Table over a difference of understanding over ordinances. As far as we are concerned, everyone who has repented of his sins and trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ is entitled to come to His table.

But if, say, the son or daughter of a church member professed faith in Christ and wanted to partake of the Lord's Supper, we would naturally expect him to be baptized, and would want to know the reason why if he didn't want to be.

Martin


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by toddpedlar_
> Thanks for your comments, all.
> 
> I'm truly I'm intrigued by Bunyan's stance on this. Unfortunately his are a set of works I don't have - but perhaps I can find the relevant material online.


CCEL.org is a great place to go to find texts in multiple formats:

http://www.ccel.org/b/bunyan/


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Further, and more fundamentally, the Supper is not the sign of initiation into the covenant of grace, baptism is. It's this confusion of initiation and renewal that is at the heart of paedocommunion. That's why I say that the paedocommunionists are really crypto-Baptists with a medieval pretense!


Can somebody explain this to me a little more. Everything he writes resonates but:

1. What does he mean that paedocommunionists are crytpo-Baptists?
2. What is the medievel pretense?

I'm trying to get better read but I'm missing it here. If Dr. Clark sees this and has time to respond it would be great but anybody who understands it is welcome to help me out here.


----------



## toddpedlar (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> However, you must realise that in Baptist understanding, infant baptism is no baptism at all. Someone who has been 'christened' as an infant is no different to somebody who has never been baptized. Yet we do not wish to prevent visitors to the church, who may be evangelical Anglicans and true believers, to be excluded from the Lord's Table over a difference of understanding over ordinances. As far as we are concerned, everyone who has repented of his sins and trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ is entitled to come to His table.



I certainly understand that you see infant baptism as no
baptism at all. But the question is why the unbaptized in your
eyes are admitted to the Table at all before baptism. Please forgive
me if I seem dense - I'm just trying to get a grasp on the fundamental
matters in this issue, and it's certainly possible I've missed an explanation here or there.

I'm, very curious about the development of this practice. 
Is the reason you say that any who profess faith are admissible
to the Lord's Supper regardless of baptism that you do not see 
baptism as a marker of initiation, the way that a person is 
marked as a member of the visible church?

I also wonder if it is also because you do not see the Lord's
Supper as the communion meal of the church. I assume
this practice is done in part because you see a great disjunction
between the testaments as to their ordinances/sacraments.

I'd be curious to see why, Biblically, those who have
repented of sins and trusted in Christ are not immediately
brought to the baptismal font, as was the Ethiopian. I just 
don't see any Biblical justification for offering the Lord's
Supper to any that have not identified themselves publicly
with God's people first. 



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> But if, say, the son or daughter of a church member professed faith in Christ and wanted to partake of the Lord's Supper, we would naturally expect him to be baptized, and would want to know the reason why if he didn't want to be.



Is this distinction actually made? (between those children of
church members who profess faith vs. those unrelated to church
members who profess faith) Aren't all encouraged to be baptized
upon profession?

Thanks for the dialog,

Todd


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ...



Rich,

Both paedocommunionists and Baptists conflate the two signs. They do it for different reasons, but neither Baptists (as I understand them) nor paedocommunionists distinguish properly between Baptism as the sign/seal of covenant initiation and the Supper as the sign/seal of covenant renewal. Hence, Baptists use Baptism to show that, in effect, the covenant has been renewed and the Supper, in many cases, means little or nothing and is ill observed -- or in some cases, not at all. 

Clearly, in the case that Baptists allow unbaptized persons to come to the table, baptism is regarded as a mere formality and at best shows that that the candidate has taken up the promises of the covenant of grace for himself. 

In Reformed churches (and I make that distinction intentionally) we see the Supper as the place in which the baptized person (whether infant or adult), having been properly catechized and having made a profession of faith, takes up the promises made in baptism for himself. The Supper is the place of covenant renewal. What was initiated in Baptism comes to realization in the Supper.

By giving communion to infants, paedocommunionists (many of whom are former Baptists trying really hard to rebel against their Baptist/fundamentalist roots by becoming "high church," -- "look Ma, we're all grown up now!") do the same thing as the Baptists. They treat communion as a sign of initiation. Clearly infants cannot renew the covenant. When infants take communion they are not saying, "I hereby take up for myself the promises made to me in my Baptism." They have not been catechized. They have not made profession of faith. The signs/seals of initiation and renewal have once again, like the Baptists, been conflated, albeit in a different direction. In this case, rather than ignoring Baptism, these fellows (often FV in our circles) load up Baptism with the power to unite the Baptized to Christ and to thus convey to the Baptized temporary possession of the benefits of Christ, i.e., the _ordo salutis_). I see the same sort of phenomenon when premillennial dispensationalists embrace predestination (and hence, in their minds, have become "Reformed") and flip their eschatology right over into postmillennialism. What was an earthly 1000 year reign becomes an earthly golden age of indeterminate length. It's more or less the same thing in slightly different dress. The legalist fundamentalist Baptist becomes a legalist fundamentalist theonomist. Where once he was a tee-totaler, issuing dictates against the paedobaptist "liberals," now he starts drinking and issue fatwahs against non-theonomic "liberals." Same mentality, different issues. In these cases, the newly "Reformed folk" never stopped to actually learn the Reformed confessions, traditions, ethics, and ethos. Often, but not always, they're just "a passin' through" on the way to the next stop (be it Greek orthodoxy or whatever).

As to "medieval pretense," I mean to describe those folk for whom the history of the church was once seen as a giant parenthesis: Apostles, parenthesis (well, maybe there were some Waldenses or Albigenses who kept the gospel alive in the interim) then Reformation (a good but halting step), then the real thing shows up in the [pick 'em] ___th century. 

In reaction, they discover that, rather than Morton buildings, we used to have really nice church buildings (mostly in Europe), we used to think about sacraments and means of grace, and we used to take the idea and practice of Christian community and the visible church seriously. So, once again, without really pausing to let the Reformation sink in, they pass through Geneva briefly just long enough to pick up some vocabulary and cloak their still Baptist-fundamentalist theology and ethics with a medieval robe and a few naughty votive candles. "Whoopee, we're recovering the ancient church."

Those evangelicals who've done something like this and rushed into Greek orthodoxy are regarded by the traditional orthodox still as "Baptists." I suspect that's how Scott Hahn is seen by the more traditional Romanists who don't appear on cable TV shows etc.

So, having fled fundamentalism and reductionism, they remain fundamentalists and reductionism. In the process, they take lots of other well meaning but impatient American fundamentalists with them on their misguided pilgrimage. 

It would have been helpful if they could have spent a little more time in Geneva, perhaps actually gone to school -- but like real fundamentalists, they didn't really have time or inclination to get some actual book learning -- and actually lived in actual Reformed churches for a few years before they starting revising (along fundamentalist principles) what they never really understood in the first place.

Clearer?

rsc

[Edited on 2-13-2006 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 13, 2006)

Crystal.

Thank you.


----------



## Steve Owen (Feb 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by toddpedlar_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> ...



Well first of all, _pace_ Dr Clark, baptism is *never* described in the Bible as the seal of the New Covenant. The Holy Spirit is that (Eph 1:13-14 etc). Baptism is an outward sign of something that has already happened, ie. A new birth in Christ (Acts 2:41; 8:12 ). Beyond any doubt, the natural and proper thing is for new believers to be baptized and then attend the Lord's table.


> I'm, very curious about the development of this practice.
> Is the reason you say that any who profess faith are admissible
> to the Lord's Supper regardless of baptism that you do not see
> baptism as a marker of initiation, the way that a person is
> marked as a member of the visible church?



I do not use the term _visible church._ One becomes a member of the Church universal when one is converted. One becomes a member of a local church when that church accepts you into membership. Baptism is, in addition to that described above, the public profession of faith by the party baptized, and an indication by the baptizing church that it accepts that he is, as far as man can tell, a Christian. 


> I also wonder if it is also because you do not see the Lord's
> Supper as the communion meal of the church.


No. we would see the Lord's Supper as the communion meal of the church.


> I assume this practice is done in part because you see a great disjunction between the testaments as to their ordinances/sacraments.


It is not done because of that, but yes, a moment's thought will reveal the huge differences between the Passover and the Lord's Supper.


> I'd be curious to see why, Biblically, those who have
> repented of sins and trusted in Christ are not immediately
> brought to the baptismal font, as was the Ethiopian.


I think this is a question for paedo-baptists to answer.


> I just
> don't see any Biblical justification for offering the Lord's
> Supper to any that have not identified themselves publicly
> with God's people first.


Are you saying that paedo-baptists have not identified themselves publicly with God's people? The reason for all this is that 'open' Baptists do not wish to exclude their paedo-baptist brethren from sharing table fellowship with them. I will accept criticism from Strict Baptists on this score, but not from paedo-baptists. If you don't want to come, that's just fine.


> > But if, say, the son or daughter of a church member professed faith in Christ and wanted to partake of the Lord's Supper, we would naturally expect him to be baptized, and would want to know the reason why if he didn't want to be.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, all are encouraged to be baptized upon profession. The exception is made purely for paedo-baptists wishing to take the Lord's Supper in open Baptist churches, but who do not wish to undergo believers' baptism.

I am aware of some Baptist churches that treat baptism as a sort of 'optional extra.' I don't think that many reformed Baptist churches would take that view. However, the practices of churches will vary since each church is independent. In the church where I was helping until recently, all those who 'know and love the Lord Jesus Christ' were invited to take the Lord's Supper. This invitation was for the benefit of visitors, of whom there might be many since the church is in a holiday area. However, new converts were expected to be baptized before partaking. After baptism, another six months had to elapse before one was eligible for church membership.

Bunyan's views on this matter are set out in his _Confession of my Faith and a Reason of my Practice in Worship_, published in 1672. It must be available on the Net somewhere. William Kiffin replied on behalf of the 'Strict' Baptists in his _Sober Discourse of Right to Church Communion_ (1681 ).

I hope this is helpful.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## toddpedlar (Feb 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by toddpedlar_
> ...



There are some obvious differences, of course - for one,
there is no Lamb at the Lord's Supper (physically anyway,
THE Passover Lamb is, of course, there.) I assume you understand
the connections that ARE there, however. It is the regular communion meal of the church, just as Passover was in the Old Testament; it signifies freedom from slavery, etc. Christ IS our Passover (therefore let us keep the feast). 



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by toddpedlar_
> ...



What's to answer? When a new believer confesses faith, 
he is brought to the font, if not previously baptized. 



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by toddpedlar_
> ...


As a paedo-baptist, of course I deny this. Those who have
been baptized have very clearly been publicly identified with the
church. What I'm saying is that I don't see the Lord's Supper
as properly administered to those (rightly or wrongly) that one
believes is unbaptized. But again, this view hangs on an 
interpretation that sees far more continuity between the
Testaments than baptists typically do. One rite of covenant initiation
(baptism/circumcision), one rite of covenant communion
(passover/Lord's Supper). Obvious differences there are, but
they are of form and not substance - at any rate these 
are the functions of the ordinances/sacraments in the two testamental periods.



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by toddpedlar_
> ...



But in practice this includes many who are not baptized
at all (in any way - I realize you think all we do is get our
babies wet). So, as you note, baptism in effect becomes "an optional
extra", in practice. (although I'm sure good deacons have their sights set on those who are continually partaking without desire to be baptized)

Todd


----------



## Steve Owen (Feb 15, 2006)

Todd wrote:-


> There are some obvious differences, of course - for one,
> there is no Lamb at the Lord's Supper (physically anyway,
> THE Passover Lamb is, of course, there.) I assume you understand
> the connections that ARE there, however. It is the regular communion meal of the church, just as Passover was in the Old Testament; it signifies freedom from slavery, etc. Christ IS our Passover (therefore let us keep the feast).


Just to mention a few other differences:-
1. The Israelites fed upon the passover lamb physically, Christians feed upon Christ by faith.
2. The Passover was kept only once a year; the Lord's Supper is held, 'As oft as ye eat...'
3. No faith was required in order to eat the Passover, only circumcision. If a stranger wished to partake, *'Let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and take it'* (Exod 12:48 ). Nothing is said of all the males (children and servants) needing to believe in anything, including the promises to Abraham. The purpose of the Passover may well have been to _inspire_ faith (Exod 12:26-27 etc); the purpose of the Lord's Supper is to _strengthen_ faith.

To draw too close a parallel between the Passover and the Lord's Supper might seem to play into the hands of the Paedo-communionists. Entry to the Passover was by circumcision; entry to the Lord's Supper is by faith.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 15, 2006)

My principal purpose in this post is to address this comment: "No faith was required in order to eat the Passover, only circumcision," and this one: "Entry to the Passover was by circumcision; entry to the Lord's Supper is by faith."

If a credo-baptist is not going to see baptism and circumcision as correlative sacraments, New Covenant and Old Covenant, then I suppose it is consistent for them to also deny that the Lord's Supper and Passover are also correlative sacraments.

As for one meal (Passover) requiring ritual only as prerequisite, and then only in the New Covenant do we find faith requirent--I am stunned to find this kind of materialistic cast assigned to the Old Covenant administration. Truly. I mean, why did God tell these people that he hated their feasts (e.g.: Is. 1:13-14; Hos2:11; Amos 5:21-25) ? Why were the people commanded to be ceremonially clean in order to keep the feast (Nu. 9:7ff) ? We know that ceremonial cleansing symbolized purity before God, adherence to his law-word and covenant, separation from sin and from those outside the covenant--_none of which is genuinely possible apart frorm faith?_ Jesus rebukes Nicodemus (John 3:10), and in him the whole leadership and the whole nation, for generations of ignoring the obvious.

If you belonged to the covenant people, you were *supposed* to have faith, you were *expected* by GOD to have faith. If you were content with ritual, then "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me," was the divine assessment, and judgment was sure to follow (see. Lev. 26:40-42; Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:4).

Israel was expected to be circumcised _in faith_ in order to partake of the Passover. Likewise, to partake in the Lord's Supper, you must be baptized _in faith._ Is this the only requirement? No. But it is primary. It's the door into the church. You must be a member of the church in order to be _in_communion. How else can you be _ex_communicated?

As for the idea that closely connecting the two feasts is a means of playing into the hands of P-C, I flatly deny. That would be like saying that we should downplay the connection between Christ's _sacrifice_ and the sacrificial system of the OT, because that would encourage dispensationalist dreams of a third temple.


----------



## toddpedlar (Feb 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Todd wrote:-
> 
> 
> ...



The first is odd to point out - so they ate the lamb physically. Was that lamb REALLY the sacrificed Lamb of God? Was it REALLY the Lamb that purchased their salvation with his very life? MH GENOITO!. Just as then, it is the case now. Partaking of these sacraments is done SPIRITUALLY, indeed, REALLY. The physical nature of what was consumed then is no different than it is now - ONLY the symbol has changed.

The second is irrelevant. Frequency just doesn't play a role. In the Old Testament, there was but one memorial day for the Exodus. In the New, EACH Sabbath is meant for the celebration of the atoning work of Christ. The Supper is intimately tied to that act that we celebrate, which is why many churches celebrate it weekly. 

The last one, as Bruce has commented, is really astounding. NO faith, eh? Well, if you ask me, if I wanted to partake, and therefore I had to be circumcized, that would take a LOT of faith!

To assert that faith was not expected of God's people in Old Testament times is really odd to me. The people of old, just as we are today, HAD to live by faith! Only the DOOR to the Passover was provided by circumcision - beyond that, you see, as Bruce noted, that all kinds of derision was heaped on the Israelites for their LACK of faith in participation. Same today - although you are asserting that there is no door to the Lord's Supper. Check that. You are asserting that there is a door, but it is "faith". Tell me, how do you know that the profession of another, by which you admit them to the table, is valid?



> To draw too close a parallel between the Passover and the Lord's Supper might seem to play into the hands of the Paedo-communionists. Entry to the Passover was by circumcision; entry to the Lord's Supper is by faith.



Well, it might seem so to play, to you, but truly it does not. We're only drawing parallels that we see Scripture making. What I think we see you and other baptists doing is bifurcating the two cermonies (and the two testaments, often) completely, in a way that is foreign to the way New Testament writers (and, indeed, Christ) speak of the Old Testament. What is asserted by the Reformed community is that baptism is a marker of inclusion. It is not the ONLY requirement. The PC folks would argue that it is the only requirement, but there we part ways. 

Todd


----------



## Steve Owen (Feb 15, 2006)

Bruce wrote:-


> If you belonged to the covenant people, you were supposed to have faith, you were expected by GOD to have faith. If you were content with ritual, then "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me," was the divine assessment, and judgment was sure to follow (see. Lev. 26:40-42; Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:4).


Exactly so. That is why the Lord says, *'"Behold, the days are coming," Says the Lord, "When I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah- not according to the covenant I made with their fathers......."'*. As hard as you look, you will find no text that says that faith was required to partake of the Passover. Most Israelites went through the ritual and commemorated their deliverance from Egypt, but with no thought of, or faith in, the promises made to Abraham. But the 'better' New Covenant, and therefore the Lord's Supper, is specifically *'not according'* to the old. The huge majority of the Israelites did not have faith and did not know the Lord, and so they perished in the wilderness or went into captivity (Isaiah 1:9 etc). God's new covenant people _do_ have faith and _do _know the Lord, *'From the least of them to the greatest of them'* (Heb 8:11 ). Therefore it is written of them, *'I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds i will remember no more.'*

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 2-16-2006 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Bruce wrote:-
> 
> 
> ...


So, exactly so, you were supposed to have faith to participate in the Passover?


----------



## Steve Owen (Feb 15, 2006)

> So, exactly so, you were supposed to have faith to participate in the Passover?


No. Exactly so, the Israelites came under judgment. They were certainly supposed to have faith in God generally (eg Heb 3:19 ), but faith was not a requirement for the Passover, only circumcision. Look at Exod 12:48 again and tell me where the faith comes in. In Esther 8:17 we read, *'Then many of the people of the land became Jews because fear of the Jews came upon them.'* There is no suggestion that they had any fear of Jehovah, but if they lived in Israel they would need to be circumcised, and they could observe the Passover with no problem.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 15, 2006)

There is no suggestion that Rahab had any more faith than that her city was about to be sacked and she didn't want to die with them but, fortunately, she didn't have somebody reading into the kind of faith that she had.

You technically don't have to have any faith to participate in the Lord's Supper either if you want to partake in any unworthy manner.


----------



## Steve Owen (Feb 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> There is no suggestion that Rahab had any more faith than that her city was about to be sacked and she didn't want to die with them but, fortunately, she didn't have somebody reading into the kind of faith that she had.


Oh dear. Look at Josh 2:9, 11. You can even find her repentance in Josh 2 if you look hard enough. 


> You technically don't have to have any faith to participate in the Lord's Supper either if you want to partake in any unworthy manner.



The NT makes it clear that faith was required to partake of the Lord's Supper (Acts 2:44;47; 1Cor 11:27-29 ). There is nothing similar relating to the Passover.

BTW, I am of course not saying that no Israelite had faith in God's promises (eg. Luke 2:25; 10:24 ). But to patake of the Passover, all you had to be was a circumcised Israelite or sojourner.

Blessings,

Martin


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 16, 2006)

I know Rahab had true faith but the first thing she states is that the terror of the Israelites had fallen on them. It is the same idea of a fear of the Jews elsewhere. Just because God doesn't connect the dots for you doesn't give you license to _presume_ some sort of mass circumcision without any attendant faith. It is also absurd to imply some sort of "easy believism" among the Hebrews of Esther's day that they would just circumcise pagans into the Covenant community willy nilly. 

I think, for sake of your "system", you prooftext a passage and say "See, here's an example where we _know_ these people were circumcised with no faith whatsoever."

Hogwash. You may attempt to establish your point by appealing to explicit teaching but don't use your view as a pretext to read into passages that simply refer to fear to not only rule out any faith but then, by way of tautology, establish your idea that it was just fine to be circumcised without true faith into the Old Covenant.

In other words your tautology is formed like this:

1. _A priori_, I know that one could get circumcised into Israel without faith and participate in the Passover.
2. Esther 8:17 only mentions fear of the Israelites. No mention of faith. Clearly they had none because I already know that a man can be circumcised without faith.
3. Look Rich! Esther 8:17 mentions people without faith could get circumcised. This proves that you could get circumcised into Israel without faith!

Also, you're asking the wrong question to request a prooftext of faith in Exodus 12:48. If you can't see that then it is difficult to overthrow your presuppostions.

Blessings,

Rich

[Edited on 2-16-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Steve Owen (Feb 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> I know Rahab had true faith


Now Rich, make up your mind. In your previous post you said something quite different.


> but the first thing she states is that the terror of the Israelites had fallen on them. It is the same idea of a fear of the Jews elsewhere. Just because God doesn't connect the dots for you doesn't give you license to _presume_ some sort of mass circumcision without any attendant faith. It is also absurd to imply some sort of "easy believism" among the Hebrews of Esther's day that they would just circumcise pagans into the Covenant community willy nilly.



Well, dear brother, read the Bible!
Exod 12:48. *'And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it.'* (cf. also v44 ). Don't inflict _your_ presumptions on the text and then accuse me of presumption! 


> I think, for sake of your "system", you prooftext a passage and say "See, here's an example where we _know_ these people were circumcised with no faith whatsoever."
> 
> Hogwash. You may attempt to establish your point by appealing to explicit teaching but don't use your view as a pretext to read into passages that simply refer to fear to not only rule out any faith but then, by way of tautology, establish your idea that it was just fine to be circumcised without true faith into the Old Covenant.



Well, I read the text that's there, and it tells me that circumcision was all that was necessary to partake of the Passover. Now if you can find me another text that says something different, then we must use the analogy of faith to reconcile them. But in the absence of such a text, I think you need to show a little humility.


> In other words your tautology is formed like this:
> 
> 1. _A priori_, I know that one could get circumcised into Israel without faith and participate in the Passover.
> 2. Esther 8:17 only mentions fear of the Israelites. No mention of faith. Clearly they had none because I already know that a man can be circumcised without faith.
> 3. Look Rich! Esther 8:17 mentions people without faith could get circumcised. This proves that you could get circumcised into Israel without faith!



Rich, a moment's thought will tell you that I could form a silly paradigm like this for you, but I forbear.


> Also, you're asking the wrong question to request a prooftext of faith in Exodus 12:48. If you can't see that then it is difficult to overthrow your presuppostions.



I am not asking for a 'proof-text of faith' in Exodus 12:48. I am offering it as a text that shows that faith was not necessary for one to partake of the Passover and backing it up with Esther 8:17. What you need to do is either to provide textual evidence that Exod 12:48 doesn't mean what it appears to, or to accept the word of God as it's written without filtering it through your own presuppositions.

The Passover is a type of the Lord's Supper. It could be taken by God's Old Covenant people, who had the Old Covenant sign. It commemorated the _physical_ salvation of the Jews from Egypt. The Lord's Supper is for the New Covenant people, those who know the Lord (Heb 8:10-11 ) and have the true circumcision, that of the heart (Col 2:11. cf. Phil 3:3 ). It comemorates the _eternal _salvation of God's people, of which the Passover is again merely a type.

Rich, without wanting to appear patronizing, I think you need to brush up on your hermeneutics. Might I suggest purchasing *Principles of Biblical Interpretation* by Louis Berkhof? He was a Presbyterian, so he won't do you any harm.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 16, 2006)

Martin,

I don't believe you are being patronizing but I do believe you have trouble understanding what is being argued and tend to lose track of where the argument is. Please read my concern, re-read it, make sure you understand what I criticized in your method to begin with, and then think about what, if any, response you will give. Perhaps then we can stop speaking past each other.

1. I never stated that Rahab had no faith. I used her as an example of a person who _appeared_ to be basing her help to the spies on _fear_. I don't have to rely even on Joshua to know she had real faith as she is commended in Hebrews. Had it been left unexpressed both in Joshua (ending maybe with Joshua 2:11a) and in Hebrews, you would have likely been convinced she had no faith until you ran into her in glory. Speaking of Hebrews 11, Jephthah is an interesting charachter to include. Without divine revelation to "connect the dots" it is certainly difficult to see "resting faith" in Judges 11. Judges 11 never asks us to consider whether Jephthah had true faith (a point we shall keep in mind).

2. I focused specifically on your use of Esther 8:17 as a prooftext for circumcision without faith. OK Martin, exegete the passage and demonstrate that the passage _establishes_ that the converts had no faith. Show me _explicitly_ how the passage, as it only mentions fear, _rules out faith_. You cannot do so. You are arguing it in by tautology. The scriptures do not tell us they had no faith, _you tell us they had no faith_ and then use the passage as an example of circumcision without faith! 

3. Exodus 12:48 is another example of where _you_ prescribe something that is not stated. You _demand_ that the text states that no faith is required for the Passover. Where? Where does it say you don't have to have faith? You drop it in like some prooftext and then tell me I have to demonstrate to you that faith is required in Exodus 12:48 to overthrow _your_ presupposition that the absence of a detailed statement of faith means none is required.

In summary, _you_ are reading things into both texts mentioned. I am not claiming that the texts _demand_ faith, I am merely correcting your faulty use of the texts to show me that they _demand_ no faith.

And so, since you are the hermaneutical expert and I am a mere novice, please show me what accepted method allows you to rule faith out of Esther 8:17 or Exodus 12:48 and then use them as pretexts to demonstrate your pretextual rule?

Lest you lose track of the argument: I am arguing against your imperialism that the texts rule out faith. I am negating your argument rather than positing one. *It might well be that you are right* (I don't believe so) but you'll have to do a much better job than the texts you use to establish that there is no faith required in either circumcision or the passover.

Finally, I hope I don't sound patronizing when I say that I am used to such poor use of inference from Arminians and their abuse of John 3:16. "Look", they say, "no mention of inability in John 3:16. It _must_ mean that all men are capable of responding to the Gospel." When I state such things you believe I am "playing the man". Not at all. I want to be vivid so you'll realize what you're doing with the passages and then add insult to injury by accusing _me_ of eisogesis when I ask "...where does this passage say they had no faith?"

[Edited on 2-17-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------

