Is it schismatic to wrongly refuse someone communion?

[RenderedUntoGod]

I have been thinking for a while about the significance of churches refusing to commune someone for an invalid reason. This idea came up because my brother attends a Baptist church that very explicitly says that participation in communion there is reserved for those who 1) were baptized as adults by confession of faith and 2) were baptized by immersion. I want to know what is at stake in such a practice. Clearly, the leaders of my brother's church believe that those who are not both baptized as adults and by immersion are not baptized at all. I know that the first part is a non-negotiable part of Baptist dogma, but I also know of Reformed Baptist churches that do not hold so dogmatically to the second part. For instance, my roommate was baptized as an adult by sprinkling at a PCA church, yet is now a communing member at a Reformed Baptist church. His church seems to take the stance that his baptism was improperly administered but is not invalid. If my roommate went to my brother's church, he would not be able to take communion.

Under the presupposition that my brother's church is wrong on both accounts to refuse communion to someone baptized as an infant or someone like my roommate who was baptized as an adult under a mode other than immersion, would it be proper to characterize such a church as schismatic? I'm not trying to start a debate about baptism; rather, I want to hear from both sides of this divide what's at stake in this common Baptist practice. Presbyterians, how should we consider Baptist brothers who would not commune us? Baptists, what is at stake if you're wrong on the matter of a valid baptism?

 

[No Other Name]

1689 2LBCF

All ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Christ, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table, and cannot, without great sin against him, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto;12 yea, whosoever shall receive unworthily, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, eating and drinking judgment to themselves.13

---

12 2 Cor. 6:14–15
13 1 Cor. 11:29; Matt. 7:6

^This forms the basis for what I would vote as church polity.

Incidentally, my family and I were withheld from communion in a PCA church as the Table was for church members only. I do not think it is proper to call churches who take precautions schismatic, no.

 

[J.L. Allen]

1689 2LBCF



^This forms the basis for what I would vote as church polity.

Incidentally, my family and I were withheld from communion in a PCA church as the Table was for church members only. I do not think it is proper to call churches who take precautions schismatic, no.

A communion closed to non-members doesn't mean that you deny those people as baptized Christians altogether. It just means that you are limiting whom you are willing to serve in order to be careful. The CanRef have the same practice and so do the Lutherans. Though the latter would say it is also related to a difference in understanding on the Lord's Supper. What the OP described isn't that. It is denying that those other people are actually baptized Christians.

Post automatically merged: May 28, 2025

but I also know of Reformed Baptist churches that do not hold so dogmatically to the second part. For instance, my roommate was baptized as an adult by sprinkling at a PCA church, yet is now a communing member at a Reformed Baptist church. His church seems to take the stance that his baptism was improperly administered but is not invalid.

I would read this as an inconsistency. If baptism is only by immersion, then all other baptisms are invalid and are no baptisms at all.

 

[EvanF]

Both 1689 and WCF adjure the saints to maintain a holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God and to extend the same to all those who in every place call upon the name of the Lord, Jesus. (1689 27.2, WCF 26.2)

I think it would be schismatic to deny communion to a professing believer without knowledge of ongoing discipline or grave sin, all the more so if the denial rests on the basis of confessional differences between 1689 and WCF. The 1689 exists afterall in order to maintain communion of reformed baptists with those who hold the WCF.

However, in the case of a person whose profession is unkown attending worship in a congregation for the first time, I would understand if elders withheld sacraments until hearing a profession.

 

[DanSSwing]

I'm with Bunyan on baptism though not sure how he viewed communion. I'd admit them to communion as long as they were baptized (even if irregular) in a valid church.

 

[Edm]

Does that part of the 1689 that was quoted above reason that anyone who takes communion and is not baptized as an adult by submersion is sinning? For instance when a PCA church offers communion to its PCA members? I do not believe that is how most feel, but it could be interpreted that way.

 

[EvanF]

Does that part of the 1689 that was quoted above reason that anyone who takes communion and is not baptized as an adult by submersion is sinning? For instance when a PCA church offers communion to its PCA members? I do not believe that is how most feel, but it could be interpreted that way.

Even if it were a sin, were it a sin worthy of excommunication? Because that is what it means to exclude a brother or sister from communion, and if so, then it should follow that the excluded person is treated the same as any unregenerate sinner outside the body of Christ.

I don't think many reformed baptists truly think that reformed paedobaptists are unregenerate sinners, so why would they argue for breaking communion with them?

 

[No Other Name]

Does that part of the 1689 that was quoted above reason that anyone who takes communion and is not baptized as an adult by submersion is sinning?

No, it doesn't.

"ignorant" is defined as "someone who does not know Christ and the gospel". And "ungodly" and "unworthy" are sinners apart from Christ (5.6) and these are linked to the "dogs" and "swine" of Matt. 7:6. Anyone who reads more than this is moving beyond the bounds of the confession.

The phrase of the Apostle implyes, that they who unworthily handle these holy mysteries are guiltie before God as well as Judas, who betrayed the body of our Saviour; or the Jewes, who bound his hands, and spit upon his face; or the soldiers who spilt his blood.

- Renihan, James To the Judicious and Impartial Reader: A Modern Exposition of the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith. p. 566 on 30.8. Quoting Owen, John. The Nature of Apostasie from the Profession of the Gospel. (London: N. Ponder, 1676), p. 35

 

[Edm]

To be clear, I have never seen it treated that way. And I have not studied the 1689. I was only asking in reference to what I saw quoted. And rereading it, I saw that I was jumping a conclusion by seeing something that was not there. Sorry about that.

 

[No Other Name]

To be clear, I have never seen it treated that way. And I have not studied the 1689. I was only asking in reference to what I saw quoted.

Me neither, but apparently the OP's brother has.