Baptism / Lord's Supper Questions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey Pastor,

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

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

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

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

:lol: Does Mark Dever know about this? ;)

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

In our church, fencing the table consists of the Minister (i.e. me) clearly articulating who may and and may not participate in the ordinance. If those prohibited from partaking do so in spite of the churches injunction, their guilt is upon their own heads.

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

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

Baptist Voices on Closed Communion:

Q 103. Who are the proper subjects of this ordinance [i.e. the Lord's Supper]?

A. They who have been baptized upon a personal profession of their faith in Jesus Christ, and repentance from dead works.

The Baptist Catechism (1695)​
None but penitent sinners, and true believers, and those baptized, upon a profession of their repentance and faith, are to be allowed communicants at this ordinance; for such only can look to Christ whom they have pierced, and mourn, and exercise godly sorrow and evangelical repentance; such only can eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ in a spiritual sense by faith; to such only Christ’s flesh is meat indeed, and his blood drink indeed; such only can by faith discern the Lord’s body, and please him in this ordinance; for without faith it is impossible to please God; wherefore a man, before he eats, should examine himself, whether he has true repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ; whether he is truly sensible of sin, and humbled for it, and believes in Christ for the remission of it (1 Cor. 11:28; 2 Cor. 13:5).
John Gill
A Body of Doctrinal & Practical Divinity pg. 922

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

The New Hampshire Baptist Confession of Faith (1833)​

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

The Abstract of Principles (1857)​

When a church receives an unbaptized person, something more is done than merely to tolerate his error. There are two parties concerned. The acts of entering the church and partaking of its communion are his, and for them he is responsible. The church also acts when it admits him to membership, and authorizes his participation of the communion. The church, as an organized body, with power to receive and exclude members according to rules which Christ has laid down, is responsible for the exercise of this power. Each individual disciple of Christ is bound, for himself, to obey perfectly the will of his Master. Whatever tolerance he may exercise towards the errors of others, he should tolerate none in himself. Though he may see but a single fault in his brother, he ought, while imitating all that brother’s excellencies, carefully to avoid this fault. He may not neglect the tithing of mint, though he should find an example of such neglect accompanied with a perfect obedience of every moral precept.

When Pedobaptists complain of our strict communion, we would remind them that they hold the principle in common with us, and practice on it in their own way. If they have aught to object, let it be at that in which we differ from them, and not at that in which we agree. The contrary course is not likely to produce unity of opinion, or to promote that harmony of Christian feeling which ought to subsist among the followers of our Lord.

When Baptists object to strict communion, we would propose the inquiry, Whether they do not attach undue importance to the eucharist, in comparison with baptism. Mr. Hall calls the eucharist a principal spiritual function. In this view of it, he complains that the privilege of partaking in it should be denied to any. Is it more spiritual than baptism? If not, why should baptism be trodden under foot, to open the way of access to the eucharist? When both ceremonies were supposed to possess a saving efficacy, the proper order of their observance was still maintained; much more should it be maintained, if both are mere ceremonies. If baptism were a mere ceremony, and the eucharist a principal spiritual function, the arguments for open communion would have a force which they do not now possess: but our brethren will not defend this position.

J. L Dagg
Manual of Church Order

Since baptism is a command of Christ, it follows that we cannot properly commune with the unbaptized. To admit such to the Lord’s Supper is to give the symbol of Church fellowship to those who, in spite of the fact that they are Christian brethren, are, though perhaps unconsciously, violating the fundamental law of the Church.

To withhold protest against plain disobedience to Christ’s commands is, to that extent, to countenance such disobedience. The same disobedience which in the Church member we would denominate disorderly walking, must, a fortiori, destroy all right to the Lord’s Supper on the part of those who are not members of the Church.

A. H. Strong
Systematic Theology

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

W. T. Conner
Christian Doctrine pp. 289-290
 
Hey Pastor,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, have a good day... I need to move on to other matters but I didn't want to let this one pass without comment.
 
During my three pastorates, we ALWAYS invited visiting Christians to partake in communion (paedo or credo). With 500 in attendance on an average Sunday, it would have been difficult to say what they actually did. In the Baptist church where I am currently a member, we invite ALL professing Christians to partake without distinction to their beliefs on baptism.

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

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

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

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

Neither myself or the men I've quoted above arrive at the position of closed communion from any rejection of the doctrine of the universal church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top