Which View of Communion Best Reflects Our Spiritual Unity In Christ?

Over the past few months, there has been a great deal of debate in the Baptist Blogosphere on the issue of Communion. Who can take Communion in Baptist churches? What does the Baptist Faith & Message (BF&M) say about this? Concerning Baptism, it says,

Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.

Of course, for Baptists, this means that baptism by immersion is a prerequisite to church membership and to partaking of the Lord's Supper.  This would be the view of Close or Closed Communion. Open Communion would declare that any confessing believer in Jesus Christ can take Communion in a Baptist church, although they would not be allowed to join the church until they were baptized by immersion. The more that I study Scripture, the more that I am leaning to the open position, although I am very willing to be persuaded to the "close" or "closed" position. I have written this post to present my questions and emerging position on this subject and to ask for input from others. 

I got into a debate with Dr. Malcolm Yarnell, professor of systematic theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, about this issue a few months ago.  I began to learn that some infuential Baptists not only believe that Communion is only to be served to those baptized by immersion, but that it should also only be served to those who believe in eternal security. I asked Dr. Yarnell about this, and he confirmed that if someone did not believe in eternal security, then they should not be offered Communion in a Baptist church because we could not accept their confession of faith as biblical. If they cannot say that they know that they will not lose their salvation, then how can they be sure of their salvation? If they are not sure of their salvation, then how can we accept their confession of faith? Since Communion is only for believers, then unless someone can say that they believe in eternal security, then they cannot say that they are saved. Also, even if they believe in eternal security now, if they were baptized in a church that did not teach eternal security, then their baptism would not be accepted as genuine and they would not be allowed to partake of Communion in a Baptist church until they were baptized in a Baptist church, or a church that believed in eternal security.

So, these groups would not be allowed to take communion in a Baptist church according to Dr. Yarnell's perspective:

• Methodists: mode of Baptism is sprinkling AND they do not believe in eternal security
• Presbyterians: they do believe in eternal security (perseverance of the saints), but their mode of baptism is sprinking for infants
• Assembly of God: mode of Baptism is immersion for believers (that's good), but they do not believe in eternal security
• Anglicans (Episcopalian), Lutherans, and any other group that either uses sprinkling as a mode of baptism, baptizes infants (paedobaptism), or does not believe in eternal security.

Now, let me be clear: The BF&M only says that baptism (by immersion for those who confess Christ, otherwise known as believer's baptism), is the prerequisite for church membership and partaking of the Lord's Supper (Communion). It says nothing about believing in eternal security. So, many Baptists WOULD allow the Assembly of God person to partake of Communion, but they would not allow the Methodist to partake of it. Almost all Baptist churches require Baptism by immersion before a person can join the church. 

I agree that Baptism by immersion should be required before a person can join a Baptist church. Even though the idea of local church "membership" as we currently understand it is not explicitly found in Scripture, it does reflect the idea of a covenant relationship between believers that IS reflected in Scripture. Our church adheres to this. I really am not interested in discussing that point, but I brought it up for clarity.

However, the area that I have disagreement is the idea that a person from another faith tradition within confessing Christianity cannot partake of Communion with our church if they are visiting or are not convinced at this point that they must be baptized by immersion as a confessing believer. If a Presbyterian or Methodist visits our church on a Sunday that we are taking Communion, am I to tell them that they cannot partake with us because their Baptism is not correct? That seems to violate the basic tenets of Scripture regarding what salvation is and our unity with other believers in Christ.

Let me explain:  As Baptists who believe in baptism by immersion, we do not believe that baptism saves us. We are not like the Church of Christ that supports a position akin to baptismal regeneration. We believe that baptism is an earthly symbol that reflects a spiritual reality. We believe that it must be done by immersion because immersion is the only way that the spiritual reality is accurately represented. We believe that baptism represents the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and it also identifies us with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. When we go down into the water, it represents our death and burial with Jesus (we are crucified with Christ - Gal. 2:20), and when we come up out of the water, it represents our resurrection with Christ (Ephesians 2:6).  This spiritual reality is shown in Romans 6:1-11.

We also believe that salvation is by grace through faith - it is not by works, but it is the gift of God (Eph. 2:8-9).  So, the moment that I believe in Jesus as my Savior, I am born again (John 3:16; Romans 10:8-17). I am regenerated by the Holy Spirit and am justified through faith in the finished work of Christ on my behalf. This happens BEFORE baptism.  Baptism is only the outward symbol of the inner work of salvation that has already occured by grace through faith.

But, Communion also reflects a spiritual reality.  That reality is shown in John 17:20-24:

 ²⁰"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, ²¹that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. ²²I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: ²³I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. ²⁴"Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.

This is amazing. Jesus is saying here that the Father is in Jesus and Jesus is in the Father. He prays that we (those who believed in Jesus through the message of the Apostles) will be in the Father and the Son so that the world may believe that Jesus came from the Father. Our union with Christ shows that Jesus is real as He lives through us. In an unexplainable way, we have been unified with Christ through faith in His finished work. Jesus is one with the Father and we have been fused into that relationship with the Trinity, so to speak, on the basis of the salvific work of Christ on our behalf. In the same way that Jesus and the Father are one, so should we be one with other believers. The oneness of the Father and Son is a spiritual reality as is our unity with Christ through faith in His finished work on our behalf. If, as an individual, I am united with Christ through that faith, and if, as an individual, you are united with Christ through that same faith, then we are united with one another IN CHRIST by faith. There is no division in Christ. In the same way that our personal union with Christ is a spiritual reality, our unity with one another in Christ is a spiritual reality.

Just as Communion shows us the spiritual reality of Christ's salvific work on our behalf and our oneness with Christ through the elements of the broken body (bread) and the shed blood (the cup), so also our partaking of Communion shows us the spiritual reality of our unity in the Body of Christ. Jesus' death and resurrection reconciled us to God, but it also reconciled us to one another. Christ Himself is our peace and He has torn down every dividing wall between every group of believers (Eph. 2:11-18; Gal. 3:26-29).  

So, if the spiritual reality is that I am united in Christ with other believers, then should I not reflect that unity through partaking of the physical reminder with other believers that Jesus gave us of this spiritual reality?  Am I to say that if a Methodist was sprinkled instead of baptized by immersion that I am not spiritually united with the brother in Christ? Am I to say that I am not spiritually united in Christ with the Presbyterian that was baptized as an infant? Unless I am willing to say that and add baptism to what it means to be spiritually united in Christ, thus adding works to faith, then how can I not partake of Communion with another brother since Communion is the symbol of our ongoing spiritual union with Christ, both individually and corporately?

Also, should I not seek to manifest the heavenly reality here on earth? Isn't that what Jesus prayed when He prayed that His Kingdom would come and His will would be done on earth as it is in heaven (Matt. 6:10)?  Are we divided into groups of Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, and Baptists in heaven? If not, then why should we artificially divide here on earth? I understand that we divide over doctrine because we cannot force one another to agree on issues that we deem vitally important, and I am not saying that we should not have different churches based on how we view Scripture. We must not violate our conscience and everything that does not come from faith is sin. But, if a Methodist comes to my church and wants to take Communion with us, then he is saying that our differences do not matter at this point for him. If they do not matter for him, then why should I turn him away if he is wanting to proclaim the salvation of our Lord Jesus Christ together with me? The only reason that I can possibly see that makes any sense is that I am saying that he is not actually a brother in Christ with me and that there is no spiritual reality of union in Christ with him. That is a severe statement and it disavows the doctrine of Justification by Faith.  The proper mode of baptism is very important in telling the story of salvation and showing obedience to Christ, but baptism is not salvation.  I am unified with other believers IN CHRIST before baptism ever occurs because salvation is God's work, not man's.  If I am united with another brother in Christ, then how could I refuse Communion to him?

These are simply questions. I have studied the Scriptures on this a good deal, but have not delved deeply into church history to study differing views. I am open to correction here and invite it if I am missing something. But, as I read the Scripture on this, I see no merit to withholding Communion from a confessing brother because he was sprinkled in a Methodist church or baptized by immersion in an Assembly of God church. 

One other thing: If the mode of baptism is so vitally important (and I believe that it is), then why do Baptists practice Communion in a manner that is not the Biblical way? Did Jesus not take from ONE loaf of bread and ONE cup? Does that mode not better "proclaim the Lord's death until he comes"? (1 Cor. 11:26).  Why do Baptists have a bunch of little individual wafers and individual little cups if we are so concerned about doing things correctly?  Should only Baptism be done in a Biblical way, but we are free to practice Communion in any way we choose? Isn't that part of what Paul was speaking against in 1 Corinthians 11?

__________________________________________________________

I am confessionally a Baptist. I believe that Baptist theology is the most Biblical that I have found. Yet, I must be guided by God's Word. I am not trying to fundamentally disagree with Baptist theology on this point, but as I read the Bible I see a question about a particular point of theology forming in my mind. I am asking the question and asking the many Baptist pastors who frequent my blog to provide clarification. Show me where I am missing it, if I am. I want to know. My opinion on this is flexible at this point because I am still studying this, really for the first time.  Things that were once just accepted on this issue are no longer the more that I study Scripture.  I want to make sure that my position and the position of my church fits with the whole counsel of Scripture.  So, fire away.

Comments

[Gary Snowden]

Just a brief comment right now as I'm heading out the door in a few minutes to take mom for a back procedure at the hospital. I think you're right on the mark with your understanding of the need for the Lord's Supper to reflect our shared experience of salvation in Christ with those of other denominations--even if we differ with them on our understanding of the correct mode of baptism. I think one of the greatest things that could ever happen for those who continue to champion Baptist Identity type understandings of these issues and seek to separate from fellow believers over them would be for them to spend some significant time on the mission field. Serving in an area where evangelical believers are a decided minority would almost certainly cause them to re-evaluate who the enemy really is. Just a hint--it's not our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ from other denominational backgrounds. In the big picture, they're part of God's forever family and it makes a lot of sense to begin embracing them as such in this life--not just waiting to do so in eternity.

[Robin Foster]

Alan

I really don't have time to debate this, but you should back up three verses in your quote from John while you are considering your possible change of position.

Jn 17:17-19
17 "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. 18 "As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19 "For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.

While God desires unity, He does not to the disobedience of His commands. Sprinkling and pouring is a perversion of the biblical record. To openly allow those to the Lord's table who deny the biblical record of immersion by their actions is to affirm their belief/practice and seek a false unity.

I hope you stick with what you have believed and allow the entire biblical record to inform your decision. Whether you agree or disagree with me, I appreciate your openness to this critical church practice and doctrine.

[Alan Cross]

I actually have no problem dividing with people over the right things. The Bible says that Christ came to bring a sword (meaning division between those who believe in Him and those who do not). I hold to a high view of baptism and of ecclesiology. The local church is very important, as is doctrine. However, if these men walked into our church, I cannot see withholding Communion from them because they had a differing view of Baptism:

(For some reason, my capital "j" is not working on my keyboard. Forgive the lowercase j's. It is not meant to be disrespectful).

Augustine
john Calvin
Martin Luther
john Wesley
john Knox

And from more modern times,

C.S. Lewis
Francis Schaeffer
D. james Kennedy
R.C. Sproul
C.j. Mahaney
Tim Keller
N.T. Wright

To name a few.

I would consider these men to be in error on the teaching of baptism, and because of that and the importance of baptism, we would not join together in church membership in a local body. This reflects the earthly reality of local churches, teachings, and denominations, although I really struggle over the biblical validity of that as well. However, our spiritual unity is secure in Christ and isn't that the story that Communion portrays? That through the body and blood of Christ we are able to come near to God both individually and collectively? That we are united with Christ both individually and collectively because of His work on our behalf? I expect to be with these men in eternity. Why would I not share the Lord's Table with them now, even if I believe them to be in error in relation to Biblical Baptism? Is the mode of Baptism a primary theological issue?

[Alan Cross]

Thank you, Robin. I was typing my comment when you wrote yours, so the previous comment was not a response to what you said. It was just a further thought that I had.

I appreciate your words there and I am glad that you understand that I am working through this instead of delcaring a hard and fast position. I do want to follow Christ in this and I see what you are saying. That is good food for thought.

I know that you do not intend to debate this, but I will respond anyway for the sake of this comment thread. Romans 14:13 says that "everything that does not come from faith is sin." I understand that the context here is food sacrificed to idols, but there is an application to this discussion. If someone was raised a Methodist or Presbyterian and they were taught that their form of Baptism was biblical, then it is understandable that they might have reservations about submitting to adult baptism by immersion. They might think that they are going back on their previous baptism and that they are invalidating what they believed God to bless only in order to please man. I don't see it this way and neither do you. We understand that Baptist by immersion is the Biblical form. However, I am reluctant to say that their error in interpreting Scripture on this issue is something that should keep them from the Lord's Table. I cannot override their conscience. I must trust the Lord to inform them. I think that you would say that withholding Communion is a means of instruction and I will think about that in this case. But, there are many theological differences that we have between groups and churches related to the Lord's commands. Which ones make it to the level that Communion would be withheld?

To take an uncomfortable example from Baptist life and history, in the past, many Baptists were racists. The SBC was begun over an dispute regarding slaveholding missionaries not be appointed by the Triennial Convention of Baptists, so Southern Baptists split off. We now say that racism is a sin. Article XV of the BFM says that Christians should OPPOSE racism. Not only did Baptists not oppose racism but they promoted it. Even Baptists as prominent as W.A. Criswell did so up until the late 1960's. He later said that he interpreted the Bible wrongly.

So, here is the question: According to your argument, you are saying that we should not partake in Communion with those who violate the commands of Christ in relation to Baptism, even if it is unknowingly. Since Scripture is clear as to the unity that we have in Christ beyond racial or ethinc distinctions (Eph. 2:11-18; Gal. 3:26-29) and since Baptists historically violated this unity, even if it was unknowingly, would you say that these Baptists should not have been allowed to partake of Communion? Do you think that Baptist churches that promoted racist teachings or did not oppose racism lost their ability to correctly administer the ordinances because they were in disobedience to the Lord's commands, even if they were convinced otherwise by what they had been taught?

The implications of this are severe for the Baptist Identity movement because of your belief in an authorized administer for baptism. If a church denied the teaching of Galatians 3:26-29 in practice by dividing according to racial lines, which was the outgrowth of Paul's argument in Galatians on justification by faith, and if total commitment to all the teachings of Christ are needed for brothers to partake in Communion together, then it is possible to say that those churches did not perform authorized baptisms because they did not practice sacrifical love for their brothers as demanded by 1 john 3 and 4.

I am not making this argument, by the way. I believe that our Baptist forefathers were in error and it was an error that needed to be opposed. I am not saying that their baptisms and communion was invalid. They were held captive to their culture and they read the Bible wrongly. But, the same grace that we give our forefathers is being withheld from those today who are held captive to the teaching that they received. Are they not also brothers? Is a disagreement on baptism more severe than division in the Body of Christ based on the color of skin? Is Christ divided? (1 Cor. 1:13).

I am only saying that we should apply this principle with consistency if we are going to go this route. I propose that we NOT go this route unless we are willing to root out all sin from the hearts of the people before Communion is offered, which is not what 1 Corinthians 11 is teaching, in my opinion. It is not saying that you must be sinless. It is saying that you must eat of the Lord's Supper rightly, recognizing the body and blood of Christ and remembering Christ in a worthy fashion, lest we bring judgment on ourselves.

[Robin Foster]

Alan

One more comment and then I need to go to other duties. I respect each of the men you mentioned. I appreciate their contributions to Christianity. But for me, my allegiance is to the Lordship of Christ as stated in his commands. I seek to be sanctified in His Truth. If there is a benefit I have received from blogging over the last three years, it is I have honed in on this.

Now, would I personally with hold communion from these men? No. I am not the LS police. But I would state our belief that we welcome anyone to participate who has received Jesus as their Lord and Savior and have been immersed by believers baptism. I would do this because I am more concerned about Jesus' Lordship over me than I am about culture's pull away from God to a false understanding of unity. For the Christian, unity is based in maturity gained from the study and application of God's Word. May we all be sanctified in the Word of Truth.

God Bless my friend.

[Alan Cross]

Robin,

I agree with you in saying that I also do not want to be pulled away from the truth of God's Word by culture. I also do not want a false unity. But, this statement of yours possibly illustrates our differences on this issue at this point (again, I am still working through this - thank you for serving as a foil for me to bounce thoughts off of. I do appreciate you engaging me on this).

Sorry, the statement:

"For the Christian, unity is based in maturity gained from the study and application of God's Word."

I would say that our unity is found in Christ and is secured in Him apart from our study and application of God's Word. In other words, there is a spiritual unity that has been purchased by Christ apart from our works or our understanding. It is entered into by faith in Christ and His finished work on our behalf. It is objectively true and is not based on a subjective understanding or experience. Now, that unity can be disrupted here on earth through disobedience - I agree with you there. But, our unity is based on Christ and we are one in Christ if our faith is in Him. It seems that Communion should fundamentally reflect that and not be subject to our understandings and appropriations of our interpretations of Scripture.

I could be wrong here, but I think that I am pretty solid on this point: Christ and faith in Him is the basis of our unity, not our maturity gained from the study and application of God's Word.

Robin had to depart. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? This is a tricky subject that pastors, theologians, and Christians have debated a long time so varying views do not speak to your level of Christian maturity or love for Christ.

[Alan Cross]

One other thing: I am not saying here that doctrine does not matter or that we can believe anything we want. Salvific faith comes from hearing the word of Christ. The gospel must be clearly preached and believed. My point is just that our unity is based on what Christ has done, not in what we have done or exactly understand. If Christ saves, then we are to respond to His salvation with faith and obedience. We do that imperfectly, yet our salvation is not based on our perfect obedience or understanding, but in the perfect grace and mercy of Christ. We are secure in Him. Thus, our unity is also found in Christ and not in our perfect understanding of His commands or our perfect obedience to them. It seems that Communion, on its most basic level reflects this because it recognizes the body and blood of jesus, broken and shed for us to have salvation in Him and through faith in Him.

If someone has experienced saving faith in Christ and is born again, I AM united with them in Christ, even if we have a different understanding of baptism. If my unity with them is based on us having the same understanding of baptism, then doesn't that move baptism up to the same level as saving faith in Christ, something that Baptists have always considered to be in error? Communion reflects our true unity with Christ and with one another IN CHRIST, not our flawed experience of that in our present situation.

That's what I'm seeing at this point, anyway. Again, I am very open to correction.

[Wayne Smith]

Alan,

I praise the Lord for the fact that you Truly keep your eyes focused on Jesus Christ.

There is only one who is very cleaver that wants to divide The Body of Christ, His Church, and all True Believers.

Did Jesus deny Judas to be a participant in the first Lord’s Supper?

Were all of the 12 Disciples baptized before partaking of the Lord’s Supper? No one has shown me a Chapter and Verse in God’s Holy Bible to support this claim.

Alan may God continue to Bless you in showing your Love for Jesus Christ in all your Blogging and your Church Ministry. You are one of a very few that have consistently demonstrated this Love and Witnessed for our Lord and Savior on these Bogs. You and Your Family are always in our Prayers.

Wayne

[Bill]

Open. I would not exclude from His table those whom He has accepted. I would not bar people from obedience in one ordinance based upon their imperfect understanding of another.

[Andrew Hicks]

Alan,

I appreciated our conversation on this issue a few weeks back. After that I also had a conversation with the lead planter I'm working with. We did not come to a full decision on it but leaned towards offering communion only for those who have participated in believers baptism.

But it is a difficult decision.

If you are a church planter and a working in a community to see people either (1) drawn to Christ in the first place or (2) drawn back to the church, are you setting up an unnecessary obstacle by withholding communion until professed believers have submitted to believers baptism. I would draw the line in the sand a bit further back, not at baptism by immersion (which I certainly hold to) but believers baptism. It seems to me to make the question clearer; has someone followed Christ's example and command to be baptized as the capstone of their salvation experience (whether it be full immersion or not, was it a decision you made and not your parents).

I also don’t see the issue as being primarily between those who might be visiting our churches and those who are members, rather between those in spiritual leadership and those we ministering to. Most of the time I think this would be an issue with those who are getting connected to a given church from another tradition, not those who happen to be visiting on a given Sunday. So, for those who have professed faith but have not been baptized as a believer, and who would like to be connected to our church, what standard are we holding to for them?

And is there a difference depending on the age of the one in question? Does it make a difference if she is 38 or 8? Should it? Do we hold to a different standard for kids than adults? Should we? If a standard is appropriate for our children why would it not be for the adults in our midst?

That’s how I’ve been thinking about it, and I tend to lean towards a closed communion. But I am not 100% settled on the issue either.

[Alan Cross]

Andrew,

I hear what you are saying and I remember our conversation. You are looking at this primarily from a local church perspective and that makes sense. It is a convincing argument and it is tempting to lock down what you believe about baptism and forward it into communion in your local church setting. As we go toward a more post-denominational era, this issue is going to become more and more pronounced, however, especially when we have people who are coming to our churches because they want our perspective on Jesus, the Word of God, and the Christian life, but they are not convinced that our view of Baptism is necessary for Communion.

To address your questions, I think that it is fine and necessary for a Baptist church to teach the biblical mode of believer's baptism in relation to church membership both for young and old. With communion an ordinance that is given to the church and believers to remember Christ and proclaim His death, I believe that a local church is required to proclaim the necessity of baptism. But, if someone is coming from another denomination within Christianity that has the same view of Communion as we do (and that is important - we would not accept the Catholic view, for example, where the person believes that the host becomes the literal body and blood of Jesus - that does violence to the biblical meaning of Communion). But, if someone has the same view of Communion that we have and they have a different view of baptism because it is what they were taught, are to we to withhold Communion from them until their view of Baptism is the same as ours? I understand how that perspective would be helpful to the local church, perhaps, because you are clarifying your doctrine of Baptism and church membership, but what are you doing to the doctrine of justification by faith and our union in Christ with other believers?

I guess that I am just restating my questions again. Sorry for that. This is a good discussion and I am seeing things from a more focused perspective. Thanks.

[Debbie Kaufman]

Dr. Yarnell's and Robin Foster's view seems eerily as if faith in Christ plus baptism plus belief in eternal security = partaking of communion. If it is not where exactly would it not.

I would also wonder where that would leave the new believer who has yet to ponder or work out immersion baptism and eternal security. Would they be able to partake?

[Debbie Kaufman]

That should have been faith in Christ plus immersion plus belief in eternal security= salvation

Also how many Calvinists would this leave out as there is not faith in eternal security per se but in perseverance of the saints. Which I believe to be different, even if in a small way.

[Andrew Hicks]

I went back and read your post with a finer eye. I didn't initially realize you were directly asking the question about how to treat visitors from other traditions in our midst. My answer was from the standpoint of, "How should the table of the local church be treated?"

I think I lean towards the table being a disciple shaping ministry, we are "proclaiming the Lords death until he comes". I guess I continue to make the tie between proclaiming the Lords death in baptism to be integrally tied to proclaiming the Lord's death at the communion table. I think Debbie's question about new believers who haven't pondered the question of full immersion baptism kind of highlights why I lean the way I do. We are underscoring for these new disciples the importance of baptism as the culmination of your transfer into the kingdom (of course I don't mean baptism accomplishes that) and the beginning of their walk of obedience to Christ's teachings.

But I am wondering if context isn't very important in this question. Couldn't the local church practice a "closed table" as their standard practice on a week to week, month to month basis, but also have the freedom to join with other churches as the occasion warrants to practice on "open communion"? Must it be an all or nothing deal once we've settled our convictions?

[Alan Cross]

Andrew,

The crux of this problem is likely related to the fact that we have public worship services where Christians of other traditions attend. Our services and times that we take communion are not "members only" so to speak, so we have to think through what we are saying about salvation and the death of Christ when we close the Lord's Table to professing believers from other denominations. Jonathon Edwards lost his church over this, but it was not about baptism. Rather, because of his grandfather Solomon Stoddard's promotion of the Half-Way Covenant in Puritan New England, there were those who were allowed to take Communion who were never born again. Edwards called for a regenerate church membership, but baptism by immersion was not the marker.

According to the view of closed communion, Jonathon Edwards would not be allowed to take communion in our Baptist churches because he did not share our view of baptism.

So, the question for me remains: Is Communion a logical extension of baptism for the disciple requiring baptism by immersion before one can take it, or does it proclaim the death of Christ for those who have experienced salvation? Can baptism and communion be split the way that I am doing it? Am I caving to the current denominational situation where we have to accept that there are believers in Christ who have not engaged in biblical baptism? What do we do with them if they come to our churches and remain convinced that their baptism is legitimate?

Questions, questions. Regarding your last question, I imagine that the scenario you present regarding joining with other churches is possible, but I do not see where it is more consistent than an open communion position. If we were to take communion with other churches, we would be recognizing that their salvation is biblical. What difference does it make if we do that in an ecumenical setting or if we allow individuals from those churches to join us for our services? Has there been a change in the status of their salvation? I mean, I wouldn't take communion with a Catholic becuase it means something entirely different for them and I would not accept their meaning of it. But, if our church joined with a Methodist or Presbyterian church to take communion with them, then why would we not allow a Methodist or Presbyterian to take communion with us when we gather together?

The problem with all of this is that we are all trying to faithfully interpret Scripture and there is no clear teaching in the Bible on this. We are drawing our arguments from inference, it seems. Still, these are really good thoughts and are helping me see this more clearly. Thank you.

[wally]

ALAN

http://loveeachstone.blogspot.com/2007/09/rogers-yarnell-dialogue-on-great_17.html

Funny what one can find when you GOOGLE..

UNREPENTENT SINNERS
he Definition of a Great Commission Christian

First and most germane to our ongoing conversation, please consider the definition of Great Commission Christians. It seems that the hasty move to recognize other evangelicals as Great Commission Christians has introduced thoughts and practices that undermine the biblical mandate. Rather than rehearsing the historical basis of this destructive error in Southern Baptist life, David, let me propose that we seek to answer the following question: Does a Great Commission Christian have to obey the Great Commission of Jesus Christ in its entirety and in its God-given order, or may we summarily dispense with some aspects of it, or practice it contrary to the God-given order, or emphasize something else?

The problem in postmodern missionary practice in the Southern Baptist Convention is largely due to the unwillingness to maintain the beliefs that our biblicist forefathers held in this matter. In other words, David, let us be clear that on the basis of the long-standing Baptist interpretation of the Great Commission, the following groups specifically do not qualify to be called Great Commission Christians: Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians (and other Reformed Churches), Non-Baptist Congregationalists, Quakers, Methodists, Pentecostals, and Assemblies of God. I will not provide an exhaustive list, for that would require a dictionary, but suffice it to say that any other Christian group that believes or practices what these Christian denominations distinctively believe and practice may not be legitimately classified as Great Commission Christians, even if some of them may be classified as "evangelicals."

The reasons that these Christian churches do not deserve to be classified as Great Commission Christians are that they violate Christ’s will in one or more of these three ways: 1) They do not obey the entirety of the Great Commission. 2) They do not follow the order of the Great Commission. Specifically, many of them place baptism prior to the making of disciples. 3) They do not emphasize the faith delivered by our Lord, but add other requirements. For instance, some of them elevate or transform the gifts of speaking in tongues or of healing, and then seek to sway other Christians to their unbiblical positions.

"Unrepentant Sinners" and "The Baptist Renaissance"

In Christ,

Malcolm

[wally]

alan

just google "Yarnell unrepentant sinners" and you will get a bucket full of comments

wally

[Strider]

Alan, I appreciate the spirit in which you are engaging this topic. For me we are lumping too many things together that don't make sense to me. First, I (like you) believe in a regenerate Ch membership and teach and insist on Baptism by immersion for membership. However, I live and work in a foreign land where there are very few believers at all. We meet in a number of different formats and I have taken, and given, communion with Christians of numerous backgrounds and theologies. I reject Robin's comment above that insist that by inviting others to the Table we condone their mistaken theology of Baptism. Why not the other way around? Why are we in the weak position somehow? We are not. By accepting communion with me it is they who are consenting to my theology not mine to theirs. And yes, this has been the case here where I live- I am not being rhetorical. But a bigger issue for me is one of whose Supper is this anyway? If I am in my own covenant community and we have decided on certain biblical principles then I am right in pointing out where someone might be in breach of our agreement. For instance, if I was in a Church with a few families and one of those families had a teenager not baptized and he decided one Sunday to take communion with us I would be right in challenging that family and seek to teach them- with the strength of the relationship we had together- the truth of the command of Baptism and I would do more than suggest that if the youth felt inclined to take the LS then maybe it was time he was baptized.
But, and I apologize for the length here, if I found myself taking communion with a group not my own local church, or if a visitor came- as they often do here- and I did not know his/her position on Baptism well then I would simply- as I have done many times- invite all who will come to the table to come. I would declare that this table is for those who are followers of Jesus and that this table is for the purpose of celebrating the sacrifice of our Lord. Any who then came would do so knowing what they are doing. I am not responsible for them. I am not in a covenant relationship with them. I am not in authority to refuse them from the Lord's table. They are there on their own conscience and it is between them and the Lord if their baptism is deficient.
My belief is that most- the vast majority of SB's- feel this way. I am not the LS police. It is not my table. I am not in control. There is one leader of the Church and his name is Jesus. All who partake of the Body and Blood of Christ are answerable to Him, not me. I do not believe that Jesus will call me forth on the day of Judgment and say, 'Well done- except that you gave communion to Brian on August 16, 2007 and he had malice in his heart toward his brother and now I am demanding an account from you for this.' No, He will say no such thing according to any scriptures I am aware of. Invite all to the table and bid them give testimony to the greatness of our Lord. Teach the truth but God is the judge.

[David Rogers]

Alan,

Thank you for your thoughtful post on this. While we have been in so close agreement on issues related to the IMB, etc., I had been a bit surprised that you said at one time (if I remember correctly) that you were in total agreement with the BF&M. Yet, now, when I read this, it appears that, once again, you are in total agreement with my position (which I believe to be in disagreement with the BF&M on this one issue).

I would add that, upon serving the Lord's Supper, it is incumbent to remind the prospective participants of the need to take it in a "worthy manner," which involves confessing and repenting of any known sin beforehand. As a convinced Baptist, I would also (as you) regularly teach on the need for believers baptism as a step of obedience. However, I see that Scripture says that one should examine HIMSELF before partaking, not that we should examine them. One exception to this, for me, would be in the case of someone who is known to be under church discipline, and, consequently barred from participation by their local assembly. In such a case, I believe we should respect the discipline of other congregations, unless we have good reason to see their discipline decisions to be egregiously out-of-line.

I would also like to see someone who defends the close/closed position seriously discuss this matter. It seems Robin doesn't have the time. :-)

I think a couple of key talking points are:

1. Is the Lord's Supper meant to be a celebration of the unity of the Body of Christ?

2. Is Christian unity based on a common saving relationship with Jesus, or with agreement in doctrine?

[David Rogers]

Robin,

You say, "For the Christian, unity is based in maturity gained from the study and application of God's Word." As I read Scripture, it seems to me you have things reversed here. The teaching of Paul, in 1 Corinthians, seems to be, rather, that maturity is based (at least to some extent) on unity.

1 Corinthians 3:1-4. "Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men?"

1 Corinthians 8:1-3. "Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God."

Ephesians 4:11-16. "It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work."

Romans 14:1. "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters."

Romans 15:5-7. "May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God."

I agree that, as we grow in our knowledge in and obedience to the truth, we experience our unity in a greater way, as we each grow closer to Christ. However, I think it is helpful, on this point, to distinguish between our positional unity, which is based on the regenerating work of Christ in all those He calls to Himself, and our practical unity, which grows or wanes according to the degree of our obedience.

As I see it, the Lord's Supper is a celebration of our positional unity, not our practical unity. It is, however, a great opportunity to put into practice our practical unity, as we learn to accept those who may be weaker in the faith as equal members in the Body of Christ.

[Wayne Smith]

David,

AMEN AMEN AMEN

It is because you too display the Love of the Lord that I always include you in the few that represent Christ's Love for His People here on these Blogs.

As always You and Your Family are in our Prayers/

Wayne

[Alan Cross]

David,

I have pretty much been in agreement with you on everything. The Communion issue was one that I had not thought of, honestly. I thought that I agreed with all of the BFM until that point was brought up and I started thinking through it. I still have not absolutely nailed down my position on this, but I am definitely leaning toward an "open" position, with Communion being offered to all those who believe in Christ as Savior.

I think that you summed up my emerging position nicely when you said,

"As I see it, the Lord's Supper is a celebration of our positional unity, not our practical unity. It is, however, a great opportunity to put into practice our practical unity, as we learn to accept those who may be weaker in the faith as equal members in the Body of Christ."

Positional unity, indeed. Baptism states the same thing, doesn't it? It tells us that we have been crucified with Christ and that we have risen with Him in new life. We might not be experiencing that death to sin in the moment that we are baptized, but positionally, that is what Christ has done for us. In the same way, Communion states what Christ has done for us, not what we have done for Him in being united around doctrine.

Of course, there is a practical unity that plays out daily as we obey the Lord and come to agreement on the truth. This practical unity is an outworking of the position that we have in Christ and is always based on Christ and not ourselves or our ability to grasp truth and apply it. Christ alone. Still, as we come to a greater understanding of the truth, we will gravitate toward one another in deeper fellowship. This is where local churches and denominations come in to play a helpful role.

More and more, however, I am seeing that both baptism and communion simply point to what Jesus has done for us in salvation and our joining together with Him. It is all Christ. We only respond to the Divine Initiative.

I am still open to correction, here, but that is what I am seeing at this point.

[Alan Cross]

Wayne,

Thank you for the kind words. May God bless you as you serve Him and know Him.

[Steven Taylor]

Wayne beat me to the question of the actual Last Supper. Even if we assume that each of the Apostles were baptized by immersion (which, as Baptists, we no doubt assume this to be true), we know that Judas was a problematic participant in the event (to put it mildly), and Jesus knew that to be the case. If Jesus did not deny Judas participation in the sacrament, why would local pastors think it is their job to deny a believer who was sprinkled and not dunked?

It seems to me that the only relevant fact is whether or not the person in question is a believer or not, and the rest falls into secondary (if not tertiary and so forth) areas of significance.

And the passages quoted by Wayne above all strike me as quite relevant, especially Romans 14:1. "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters."

And while I recognize that Baptists tend not think of this as a "disputable matter"--the fact that so many millions of our brother and sisters in Christ have been baptized in ways other than immersion would speak to the notion that perhaps it is disputed.

[Steven Taylor]

Oops--the scriptures in question were posted by David (one wishes to give credit where credit is due).