Closed table between Presbyterians and baptists

Status
Not open for further replies.
No. The entire premise of church discipline rests on the ability of the church (through its elders) to communicate and excommunicate people. A person who is unbaptized cannot just "determine on his own" that he is entitled to the Table, for example. If the "ultimate responsibility rest(s) on the individual" then there is no need for fencing the table at all.
What do you do with the language from the Bible that I referenced? I hope I don't sound snarky--I'd just be genuine astonished if you didn't place at least some responsibility on the person, given the texts to that effect.
 
Growing up I moved a lot, I went to quite a number of Baptist church’s of various affiliations. I’ve never heard of a closed table to someone who identifies as a born again christian. This is of course, limited to my experience.

Honest question, as a credo Baptist we would not subscribe to saying a pedo baptism is legitimate (all respect given to my pedo baptizing brothers) But where do we make the extension that they aren’t welcome at the table?

I’d love a gentle and scriptural reply. Only because I haven’t formed this in my own head yet
 
Growing up I moved a lot, I went to quite a number of Baptist church’s of various affiliations. I’ve never heard of a closed table to someone who identifies as a born again christian. This is of course, limited to my experience.

Honest question, as a credo Baptist we would not subscribe to saying a pedo baptism is legitimate (all respect given to my pedo baptizing brothers) But where do we make the extension that they aren’t welcome at the table?

I’d love a gentle and scriptural reply. Only because I haven’t formed this in my own head yet
This is just an explanation of the view... I'm not interested in a debate!

The basic answer of that view is that baptism precedes the Lord's Supper and baptism is the entry into the church membership. Every denomination agrees (or should) with this. It just happens that Baptists define baptism differently than everyone else. The closed view does not see paedobaptism as fitting the Scriptural view of baptism. Relatedly, the closed view sees the Supper as for the local church, binding the church into one body (1 Cor 10:17). This is also related to the definition of the church, which is that it is made up of local congregations.

So, 1) the supper is for each local church. 2) To be in a local church you should be baptized. 3) Baptism is the immersion of a believer. Therefore, if you haven't had #3, you can't have #1.
 
This is just an explanation of the view... I'm not interested in a debate!

The basic answer of that view is that baptism precedes the Lord's Supper and baptism is the entry into the church membership. Every denomination agrees (or should) with this. It just happens that Baptists define baptism differently than everyone else. The closed view does not see paedobaptism as fitting the Scriptural view of baptism. Relatedly, the closed view sees the Supper as for the local church, binding the church into one body (1 Cor 10:17). This is also related to the definition of the church, which is that it is made up of local congregations.

So, 1) the supper is for each local church. 2) To be in a local church you should be baptized. 3) Baptism is the immersion of a believer. Therefore, if you haven't had #3, you can't have #1.
Oh ok! Yeah that make sense!
 
What do you do with the language from the Bible that I referenced? I hope I don't sound snarky--I'd just be genuine astonished if you didn't place at least some responsibility on the person, given the texts to that effect.
It is a part of the individual's preparation for the Supper, not his control over the Supper. The Larger Catechism describes it thus:

Q. 171. How are they that receive the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper to prepare themselves before they come unto it?
A. They that receive the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, are, before they come, to prepare themselves thereunto, by examining themselves (1 Cor 11:28) of their being in Christ (2 Cor 13:5)); of their sins and wants (1 Cor 5:7); of the truth and measure of their knowledge, faith, repentance, love to God and the brethren, charity to all men, forgiving those that have done them wrong; of their desires after Christ, and of their new obedience; and by renewing the exercise of these graces, by serious meditation, and fervent prayer.

Calvin comments:

But let a man examine himself. An exhortation drawn from the foregoing threatening. “If those that eat unworthily are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, then let no man approach who is not properly and duly prepared. Let every one, therefore, take heed to himself, that he may not fall into this sacrilege through idleness or carelessness.” V 1, p 388 But now it is asked, what sort of examination that ought to be to which Paul exhorts us. Papists make it consist in auricular confession. They order all that are to receive the Supper, to examine their life carefully and anxiously, that they may unburthen all their sins in the ear of the priest. Such is their preparation! I maintain, however, that this holy examination of which Paul speaks, is widely different from torture. Those persons, after having tortured themselves with reflection for a few hours, and making the priest—such as he is—privy to their vileness, imagine that they have done their duty. It is an examination of another sort that Paul here requires—one of such a kind as may accord with the legitimate use of the sacred Supper.
You see here a method that is most easily apprehended. If you would wish to use aright the benefit afforded by Christ, bring faith and repentance. As to these two things, therefore, the trial must be made, if you would come duly prepared. Under repentance I include love; for the man who has learned to renounce himself, that he may give himself up wholly to Christ and his service, will also, without doubt, carefully maintain that unity which Christ has enjoined. At the same time, it is not a perfect faith or repentance that is required, as some, by urging beyond due bounds, a perfection that can nowhere be found, would shut out for ever from the Supper every individual of mankind. If, however, thou aspirest after the righteousness of God with the earnest desire of thy mind, and, humbled under a view of thy misery, dost wholly lean upon Christ’s grace, and rest upon it, know that thou art a worthy guest to approach that table—worthy I mean in this respect, that the Lord does not exclude thee, though in another point of view there is something in thee that is not as it ought to be. For faith, when it is but begun, makes those worthy who were unworthy.
Hodge has a similar comment:

A man ought to examine himself. In other words, he should ascertain whether he has correct views of the nature and purpose of the ordinance and whether he has the proper state of mind. That is, whether he desires to commemorate the Lord’s death in thankfulness, to share in the benefits of that death as a sacrifice for his sins, publicly to accept the covenant of grace with all its promises and obligations, and to signify his fellowship with his brothers as joint members with himself of the body of Christ.
Before he eats. That is, after this self-examination and after making sure that he is properly prepared. It is not essential, however, that this preparation should include being assured of our good state, but simply that we have the intelligent desire to do what Christ requires of us when we come to his table. If we come humbly seeking him, he will welcome us and feed us with his bread; and if we eat it, we will never die.

The idea is to examine yourself as to your state and purpose in coming to the Table to obtain the right benefit, not to admit yourself to the Table apart from the Church. This is the historic position of all Baptist and Reformed churches
 
It is a part of the individual's preparation for the Supper, not his control over the Supper. The Larger Catechism describes it thus:



Calvin comments:


Hodge has a similar comment:



The idea is to examine yourself as to your state and purpose in coming to the Table to obtain the right benefit, not to admit yourself to the Table apart from the Church. This is the historic position of all Baptist and Reformed churches
I think we agree more than disagree--I'm all aboard with elders reasonably fencing the table. The practices in Ed's post seemed a little extreme to me, though: receiving a token to exchange for the Supper, presumably before each occasion--that borders on the bizarre. Not having your testimony taken at face value, but minutely scrutinized, also seems like an over-reach, perhaps to my more easygoing, individualistic Baptist ways.
Either way, thanks for taking the time to interact and search out quotes. I do appreciate it.
 
I think we agree more than disagree--I'm all aboard with elders reasonably fencing the table. The practices in Ed's post seemed a little extreme to me, though: receiving a token to exchange for the Supper, presumably before each occasion--that borders on the bizarre. Not having your testimony taken at face value, but minutely scrutinized, also seems like an over-reach, perhaps to my more easygoing, individualistic Baptist ways.
Either way, thanks for taking the time to interact and search out quotes. I do appreciate it.
I think you are right. The PCA's position, which I heartily agree with, is to fence the Table for those who are members in good standing of an evangelical church. This allows PCA churches to respect the decisions of true churches to admit their members to the Table and to honor their judgment.
 
Another offbeat example came to mind. I've heard of a Baptist church that was willing to allow unbaptized people to take the Lord's Supper--though it was rare. And I'm not sure if it ever actually happened. I just know they said they were willing to if someone asked.

The idea is that someone could be a new believer, or believe for the first time during the sermon. They didn't want to keep a true believer from partaking. However, the immediate counsel would be that the new believer should be baptized.

Essentially, they wanted the fencing of the table to really be about discerning the Lord's body. Not about whether someone has been baptized.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top