Last Friday I posted an essay that was asking questions about the Baptist position on closed vs. open communion. Based on the evidence that I have seen, I am leaning toward an open position, which would mean that we should share communion with anyone who has professed faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior, even if their baptism is different from ours. I am still questioning this however, because there is an argument for both positions. But, that is where I am leaning. Fortunately for me, if I end up in this position, there are many Southern Baptists who would agree with me and their numbers are growing. Some estimate that a majority, or at least a healthy minority of SBC churches, practice open communion among believers in Christ.
A comment on that post got me thinking, though. It was by Robin Foster, a pastor from Oklahoma who is an advocate of a theological position called Baptist Identity. Robin has a sincere love for Christ and I have known him for a couple of years now. But, I can't help but take his comments to their logical conclusion and wonder what effect they would have. He says:
"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."
Robin also said,
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.
Is our unity based on our subjective "maturity gained from the study and application of God's Word," or is it based objectively on what Jesus has done for us through His death, burial, and resurrection which made possible our adoption into God's family? Of course, our objective unity in Christ is realized subjectively as we come to obey the Lord and grow in wisdom and understanding. I get along better with those who obey God than I do with those who do not. But, does Communion speak to our obedience and understanding, or does it remember Jesus and "proclaim the Lord's death until he comes"? - 1 Cor. 11:26. Just as baptism speaks to our positional relationship with Christ (what He has done for us), Communion also speaks to our positional relationship with Christ (what He has done for us). God initiates, we respond.
More on Communion and what it means later. First, I want to tackle the implications of Robin's (and the Baptist Identity Movement's) statements regarding Communion (Lord's Supper). This group is saying that to allow a believer in Christ to the table who was taught and accepted a different mode of baptism (not meaning, but mode) would be allowing unrepentant sinners to the Lord's Table. Some in the Baptist Identity movement have used this language. According to this argument, there is a requirement that the baptism be biblical so that the person is in obedience to the Lord before they partake of Communion. Fair enough. But, when we are talking about the Lordship of Christ, where do you draw the line?
Baptism is a command of the Lord. Apparently, if this command is not followed, then no Communion for you. Okay. But, can we be consistent and apply this to all of the Lord's teachings, or do we stop with Baptism and a few other overt sins? Many Baptist Identity spokesmen take their position from Matthew 28:19-20 which says, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you." This is called the Great Commission and for it to be followed, all of Christ's commands must be taught and obeyed. One command is not more important than the other, therefore experiencing Biblical Baptism, since it is mentioned here, is a necessity for us to share in Communion with other believers.
I can see the logic here and I am sympathetic with it. This is why this is not a cut and dried issue with me and why I am trying to work through it. I dare not say that obeying Jesus is not important. It is. I dare not diminish the Lordship of Christ in all of life. But, what makes baptism more important than other commands of Christ? Is baptism the most important command to follow after salvation and then other commands become optional? Which ones are required for obedience and which ones will we get to later? The Baptist Identity position, while stating to profess the Lordship of Christ, actually leads you to the position of relativism when it comes to the Lord's commands or to the position of advocating perfectionism - all of the commands must be followed before we can take Communion. Both are untenable positions.
For example, Jesus said in Matthew 25:31-46 that if we do not feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, invite in the stranger, clothe the naked, look after the sick, and visit those in prison, then we are in danger of eternal punishment. Are we telling those who DO NOT do these things that we cannot take Communion with them because "For the Christian, unity is based in maturity gained from the study and application of God's Word?" Of course we don't do that. We consider them to be immature and not at a point where they are ready to obey the Lord in these things and we then attempt to disciple them. But, we don't withhold Communion from them because they are not caring for the poor and the sick and visiting prisoners. If we did, we would be accused of legalism by adding works to faith in salvation and the argument against us would be that Communion reflects what Christ has done for us, not what we have done for Him. Could you imagine the Baptist pastor who stood up and said, "The Lord's Supper is for all of those who have received Jesus as their Lord and Savior, have been baptized by immersion, and who have fed the hungry, given drink to the thirsty, invited in the stranger, clothed the naked, looked after the sick, and visited those in prison?" It would not go over well. But, don't these things fit into the "everything that I have commanded you" of Matthew 28:20? According to Jesus, can we be sure of our salvation if we do not do these things? The arguments in James about faith and works come to mind as well. Is baptism a more important command than caring for the poor? By relating baptism to Communion, Baptist Identity proponents seem to suggest that it is. If the argument is, "But Baptism reflects salvation and caring for the poor does not because we are saved by faith, not works," I would caution that that is a poor view of salvation and that you are creating a false dichotomy between faith and works that Jesus does not hold (Matt. 25:46). Plus, is Baptism not something that we do? Is it not an act of obedience? Is it more of an act of obedience than caring for the poor? Jesus began His public ministry in Luke 4 by quoting from Isaiah 61: "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." Jesus highly values ministry to the needy and oppressed. That is introduced in his first public sermon as part of what He came for. So, is it okay to hold up baptism as a necessary act and not ministry to the poor?
To say that Believer's Baptism by immersion is necessary for Communion (if the person is convinced of another perspective on baptism after coming to faith in Christ), is to essentially confuse baptism and saving faith. It almost makes baptism a sacrament (a means of grace). Maybe this is why baptism is required in the minds of some and caring for the poor is not. We are still left with the vestiges of sacarmental baptism. Perhaps. I understand the perspective that baptism is our initial response of obedience after salvation and therefore, it has been tied closely to salvation and has been declared a prerequisite for Communion. The Biblical witness is that baptism be our public confession of faith, so it is very important and I do not seek to diminish it. But, I also do not want to elevate this command of Christ to a saving (sacramental) act if we truly believe that we are saved by faith apart from works. This is especially true if you do not elevate other commands of Christ to this point. So, unless we are going to require those receiving Communion to also fulfill the commands of Matthew 25 and the other commands of Jesus, lest they be kept from the Lord's Table, we had better think long and hard on this baptism position.
Allow me to make a point of clarification: Robin's point about unity based around common belief and understanding of doctrine has much merit. This is where church membership comes in, for example. I think that it is fitting for churches to form around common beliefs regarding baptism and other doctrines that they believe to be biblical. When this happens, a group of believers can give witness to the truth of Scripture and also protect themselves from outside influences that would seek to distort their view of the gospel. But, all of these positions must be examined in light of God's Word lest we hold to the traditions of man and greatly diminish the witness of the Church. We also need to seriously consider our unity in Christ with other believers who differ with us on these issues, which is a command of Christ as well (John 17:20-23). Communion speaks to what Christ has done for us in His death and resurrection, not what we have done for Him, just as baptism does. It speaks to our identification with Christ. Unless we say that Baptism plus faith is required for us to identify with Christ spiritually (the Church of Christ position), then I still do not understand how you can say that it is necessary for us to be baptized before we receive communion.
Still asking questions. As you can see, the implications of this are large for how we see our salvation, the ordinances, and our common unity with other believers who do not believe exactly like us.
Part 2 will consider Baptist Identity and the Witness of the Church in relation to abortion and racism, among other issues. I should have that up by tomorrow.
Alan,
Thanks for writing this thoughtful post. I wish I had the time to read it more carefully and digest the arguments that you're making, but right now, I don't. I hope to return to it later.
But I would like to respond to your point about the commands of Matthew 25 with an observation. First of all, communion around the Lord's table at my church is not strictly controlled, in the sense that we do not examine an individual's confession and, if it is found to be lacking, physically bar them from participation. I simply explain the requirements as our church understands them, then call for self-examination before an individual decides for themselves whether they qualify to partake.
Having said that, I would not (if we did it this way) require that someone give evidence of having clothed the naked, fed the poor, or visited the sick before allowing them to participate. Many of our people believe themselves to be fulfilling these commands by their support of the work of the church, in whatever form that may take.
However, if a person were to openly state that they prefer not to participate in these activities which fulfill the commands of Christ in Matthew 25, and that they believe them to be unimportant and unnecessary, I would certainly hope that the church would lovingly confront such open disobedience to the commands of Christ by, among other things, refusing to commune with them around the Lord's table.
I hope this makes sense, and at least somewhat addresses your point.
Again, thanks for the post.
Posted by: Wes Kenney | March 02, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Alan,
Some mixed thoughts (which means I haven't figured out what I'm going to type yet).
First, it's the Lord's table. So I have to ask, are you administering communion as His representative, or the church's? I'd vote the Lord's.
Second, obedience to commands is certainly mandated for believers, including the command to be baptized. But is that the only command which must be obeyed to "qualify for" communion? If the partaking of communion is focused only on the command to be a baptized believer, then I'd say that's the only one, then.
That would seem strange, to me. It would be, in effect, a directive for the body to examine the believer, but only on that one point.
We're also not told to observe communion, that I've ever seen; only that when we observe it, how we're supposed to go about it. So if that's a directive to observe communion, then it sure looks like the church would be directed to examine that one point, only. And then tell the partakers to examine themselves on everything else.
That does not seem consistent.
Just askin.
ps: I told Peg the other day that, one of these Wednesdays, we're going to drive to Montgomery and have supper and worship with y'all. I'm ready.
Posted by: Bob Cleveland | March 02, 2009 at 01:08 PM
Alan,
This is a thoughtful post. I guess someone around here should think through their own thoughts before posting a reply, but it won't be me either. ;) That said, here are a few thoughts off the top of my head:
I think the matter of obedience in baptism is a bit of a different issue than, say, obedience to Jesus' commands in Matthew 25 in that a Presbyterian, for instance, doesn't approach the baptismal command saying, "I don't think it is important or necessary." They approach it saying, "I've been obedient to the command as I understand the Scriptures." Thus, that Presbyterian might well examine himself in a Baptist church and conclude that he is as qualified to participate as anyone else.
As a side note I would also say that I think a great many Southern Baptists make a similar error when they say that they are already feeding the poor, clothing the naked, etc. simply by giving money so that someone else can do the actual work. I can remember many a preacher in my lifetime saying that momma's faith, or daddy's faith, or some other well-intended person's faith will not save you. You have to believe yourself. It seems to me that Jesus would say that momma's feeding the hungry and daddy's clothing the naked and some well-intended denominational employee's visiting the sick doesn't count for you by proxy just because you funded their ability to do so. Jesus said, "in as much as you've done/not done unto the least of these, my brethren, you've done/not done unto me.
I'll not be dogmatic on that yet, but it does seem to be the plain reading of Jesus' words.
I would add that I've also heard a great number of Baptists in my life publicly profess that they lack patience. Some have been honest enough to say that they don't particularly care to get any and have said, "That's just the way I am." I've never known one of them to voluntarily abstain from Communion and I've never known a Baptist pastor who lovingly confronted them and refused Communion to them. Some of them have, themselves, been Baptist pastors. I think I could say the same things about such commands as turning the other cheek, blessing those who curse us, loving enemies and others particularly in the Sermon on the Mount, but elsewhere as well.
Lastly, a though I had earlier today while thinking about these issues is that we often see God's approval in us in how he uses us for his purposes. I would suspect that many believe that the growth and blessings on the SBC have been a result of God's favor toward us. When I think of some of the outstanding figures in Christian history, people that God has used mightily, people He has used to correct the church's doctrine, people he has used to reach many lost people, people like Athanasius, Augustine, John Wycliffe, John Huss, Martin Luther, John Calvin, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, the Moravians, he often used people who never in their lives submitted to believer's baptism. God has used people in varying degrees of disobedience and has deemed them useful and acceptable often in spite of themselves.
I also wonder when I enter the presence of the Lord what things about which he will tell me I have been in unknowing disobedience. Should my concerns prevent me from taking communion?
Posted by: Paul | March 02, 2009 at 04:27 PM
All,
I went back and read my post and saw where I had some confusing statements and engaged in a poor writing style. I edited it to make more sense and to make it more readable. When I get three straight comments saying that they haven't had time to think through my arguments, I will take the blame for that. Looking back at it, it was hard to follow. Hopefully, it is easier to read now.
Wes,
Thanks for your feedback. Like I said, I am still weighing the arguments so your feedback is helpful. I understand completely what you say about not being the Lord's Supper police. That would be very difficult. I am sure that most understand your position clearly when you state it and either affirm their involvement or eliminate themselves. I've visited a Catholic Mass before and had no desire to participate in Communion with them because I knew that for them it meant something entirely different than it did for me. In no way did I think that grace was being conferred to me through the host literally becoming the body and blood of Jesus.
My question for Baptists, however, focuses in on whether or not Communion points to Justification or Sanctification. In other words, is Communion about what Jesus has done for me, or is it about how well I have grown in Him and obeyed Him? Is the argument in 1 Corinthians 11 about examining ourselves to make sure that we have no known sin and are fully obeying the Lord, or is it about having reverance for what is being portrayed through the cup and bread and sufficiently remembering Christ? Is Communion about us and our obedience, or is it about Jesus and His sacrifice? This is a new question that has emerged and it is not something that I have thought about before. But, if the answer is found in the latter proposition, then that definitely would lead us to an open position, I would think. The argument for a closed position would be based on either a more sacramental view of baptism (and communion, perhaps) or a perspective that communion speaks to our sanctification rather than our justification. I need to think about this more.
As for your thoughts on obeying Matthew 25 vicariously through giving to the church, I would tend to side with Paul here. We are told to obey Christ ourselves, not pay others to do so. This view, taken to its logical conclusion, would also lead us down a very dangerous road, I would think. What else could we pay money for so that we do not have to personally obey the commands of Scripture? I know that you have no such thing in your mind, but it does cause one to think along those lines.
Again, thank you for your response. I am still thinking through this.
Posted by: Alan Cross | March 02, 2009 at 05:34 PM
Bob,
I agree. How can we examine on that one point and not others? It can become relativistic. I know that Wes has tried to be consistent here and I appreciate that, but it still seems as though baptism is held higher than other forms of obedience.
But, here is the question: Is communion primarily about us or about Jesus? 1 Cor. 11 seems to place the focus fully on Christ. Our responsibility is to see Him and the observance of Communion rightly and not to keep others from participating on the basis of their status in the church on on the basis of worldy divisions. The issue that caused Paul to write against the Corinthians here was not private sin but rather, public division and selfishness. They were not taking the Lord's Supper at all (1 Cor. 11:20). This perspective fits in well with the whole teaching on worship, submission, and the value of the whole body in 1 Cor. 11-14.
On the other, I'd love to have you and Peg come down. Come on anytime. We just had John with us and he blessed everyone as usual. He spoke to our youth on Wednesday night and Sunday morning and I had him share in the Sunday service.
Posted by: Alan Cross | March 02, 2009 at 05:59 PM
Good thoughts, Paul. I guess that what I am doing here is trying to start with Jesus, the gospel, and the big picture of what God has done for us in Christ. Baptism and Communion speak to that in powerful ways. Does the Bible say that one is the forerunner of the other? I think that it is logical to say that Baptism comes first, especially when you look at the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts and other stories in Acts as well. That carries great weight with me, and unlike some of my Baptist Identity brethren, I see no problem with using Acts to develop doctrine since it is descriptive of the first practices of the church.
But, we live in a different day in that there are many developed churches and theological systems that we recognize as thoroughly Christian who do not agree with us on baptism. We can say that they are wrong and I believe that they are. But, they are still my brothers and sisters in Christ. So, if they will not join with me in biblical baptism not because they are prideful or stubborn, but because they are convinced of their understanding of baptism, but they will join with me in biblical communion, then how can I resist unless I am ready to declare them heretics or to say that Baptistic churches are the only true churches. Some in the Baptist Identity movement have said that. But, the implications of that perspective are dire and I don't know if we are ready to go there.
Consistency with Scripture demands a consistent position on this. I question the consistency of the Baptist Identity position at this point and that is what has led me to these posts. But, if we see both baptism and communion as illustrative of our justification by faith in the finished work of Christ and that they both point to Jesus and not us or our church, then I think that we might be on the right path.
But, again, I could be wrong. I will continue thinking through this, but you can see which way I am leaning at this point.
Posted by: Alan Cross | March 02, 2009 at 06:10 PM
Alan,
Interesting post.
After being a Presbyterian for about three years, I became convinced almost a year ago that baptism was for professing believers only. I have been wrestling with some of these issues. I have been strongly leaning the other direction, (close communion) but I have to say that this is definitely one of the best articles on open communion I have yet read.
However, I have yet to see a consistent argument for restricted membership/open communion. It seems to me that the arguments for open communion lend themselves just as easily toward jettisoning immersion as a requirement for church membership altogether. An example from this post might be, if someone is not feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, should they be put under discipline? I suppose the most reasonable explanation or argument in favor of restricted membership/open communion could be the desire to demonstrate unity with other believers who may be visiting but a stronger desire for accountability on the part of the membership with regard to baptism and no doubt other issues as well.
As for other BI matters, although I can see how someone might logically arrive at such a conclusion, I have never been able to accept the IMB baptism guideline that renders baptism invalid if it is performed in a church that does not teach eternal security. (My immersion was in a Wesleyan church and I have not been persuaded that it is invalid and will not be "rebaptized" for what amounts to pragmatic reasons, not that I'm considering serving as an IMB missionary anyway.) Where I lived, this Wesleyan minister (and church overall) was far sounder than most of the Baptist ones, many of which were rather liberal. But alas, that's another subject.
Posted by: Chris Poe | March 02, 2009 at 11:08 PM
Alan, allow me to make my response brief as my church (as I am sure as yours) does not pay us to comment on blogs all day long. ☺ I do feel the need to respond at this time to not only correct some things you have said about my comments, but also to challenge some of your logic.
First, you state this, ‘Is our unity based on our subjective "maturity gained from the study and application of God's Word," or is it based objectively on what Jesus has done for us through His death, burial, and resurrection which made possible our adoption into God's family?’ Allow me to preface my remarks by stating I believe you are a conservative Bible believing Christian, but your statement here is the same argument used by moderates when the BF&M committee, led by Adrian Rogers, took out the statement, “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.” Their (the moderates) logic allowed them to separate Jesus from the Bible in order to interpret it. Where their logic failed was that one cannot separate the Jesus we know from the scriptures. Your argument is the subjective verses the objective. You believe we can “objectively” know, “what Jesus has done for us through His death, burial, and resurrection.” I fully concur with the understanding that we objectively learn this only through God’s Word. This event is based on what the WOG proclaims. Yet you say that maturity gained from the study and application of God’s word is “subjective.” It is as if you are saying knowing this event will not lead us into subjectivity, but all other events and teachings recorded in the scriptures will. The moderates wanted to keep the criterion phrase because they felt that their experience allowed them to interpret scripture as they thought Jesus would, thereby separating Jesus from the scriptures. They wanted to separate Jesus, it seems you are trying to separate his death, burial, and resurrection as objectively known from scripture. If you say that what we gain from, “what Jesus has done for us through His death, burial, and resurrection” is objective yet anything else we gain from scripture, as we mature from studying it, is subjective, have you not in fact separated the event from the scripture as objectively known while anything else we may know about God is subjectively derived from scripture? I believe it is illogical to say that one can know one particular doctrine from scripture objectively while anything else we may derive from study and growing in the grace of God is subjective. It is either all known objectively or subjectively.
Second, I believe you misappropriated my comments. As I stated,
“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”
and
“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”
You said here,
“This group is saying that to allow a believer in Christ to the table who was taught and accepted a different mode of baptism (not meaning, but mode) would be allowing unrepentant sinners to the Lord's Table.”
First, I said, “To openly allow.” Second, I would not withhold communion. What I mean is that I always state that we invite those who have been saved and participated in believers baptism by immersion to participate with us in the Lord’s Supper. After that, we allow the individual to search himself and decide whether he is worthy to partake or not. To openly allow someone to the table without at least stating the first step of obedience (believers baptism by immersion) of walking in Jesus’ Lordship is to affirm their error. Third, please inform me where my comments stated to allow these men would be allowing, “unrepentant sinners to the Lord's Table.” I realize you are focusing on not only my comments, but the entire BI movement. But I don’t believe everyone in the BI movement would agree with your straw man here. I affirm that you are a man of Christian character, but please understand that the BI movement is a diversified movement of freethinking individuals who may or may not affirm all of what others think. That would be like me putting you in the Burleson camp and you affirming all that he said.
Finally, you state, “But, when we are talking about the Lordship of Christ, where do you draw the line?” In my humble opinion you don’t draw the line when it comes to the commands of Jesus. If he is Lord, he is Lord of all whether it is Baptism or feeding the poor.
I believe you may be well on your way to an open position, and in my previous comments I quoted John 17:17-19. I don’t believe you have dealt effectively with that scripture so I will leave you with one more before I continue my duties as a pastor.
In Ephesians 4:3 Paul commands the church to be “diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit.” Later he talks (4:11-15) about Christ giving gifts to men in the form of the apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor/teachers for the equipping of saints until we all attain the unity of the faith. This is so we will not be taken by every form of doctrine. Apparently, it is deviant teaching that will cause division. Paul says that in order to preserve unity, we are to speak, “the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the Head, even Christ.”
Notice that, we are to grow up in “all aspects.” Even Paul declares we do not draw the line and it is the teaching of the truth that brings us together.
Thanks for allowing me to respond. I must be off to other duties and I pray that you will find agreement with me in what I have written here. More importantly I pray we all are in agreement with Christ and His will as revealed in His Word. If my words in this comment seem harsh, they are not meant to be.
In Christ,
Robin
Posted by: Robin Foster | March 03, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Alan,
Just a couple of thoughts. First, I think that the command to examine ourselves in 1 Corinthians 11 has a direct relationship to the church. In the context of the entire passage, we understand that the members of the Corinthian church were treating one another terribly in their observance of the Supper. When Paul then says in verse 29 that anyone who "eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself," I believe that it is a call to consider whether we are rightly related to the rest of the body of Christ. To say that we are simply to make sure we don't have any unconfessed sin before partaking doesn't really fit with the context here in my view. We ought to always be examining ourselves to see that we don't have unconfessed sin in our lives, not just when we come to the Lord's table.
I knew that what I wrote about obedience to Matthew 25 was a bit half-baked even as I wrote it, and I've obviously communicated something unintended. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that our members view themselves as paying someone else to obey on their behalf. You're right to point out that suggestion as a dangerous one. When I said "by their support of the work of the church," I didn't have in mind primarily financial support, but rather support by involvement in ministries that seek to meet these obligations, such as the food bank, visitation of shut-ins, and the like. Of course, for some the involvement is primarily through supporting the work financially and through prayer, but there is a genuine desire on their part for obedience, which I was attempting to contrast with the hypothetical person who would argue that the command is irrelevant to them.
Posted by: Wes Kenney | March 03, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Robin and Wes,
Thank you for your responses. I don't have time to reply to you in depth right now, but I might later today if I am able. You have both given me a lot to think about and I will consider what you are saying.
One thing though, Robin, let me clarify that I know that you have not used the "unrepentant sinners" label, or at least I do not know of you doing that. Others have used it and I tried to draw a distinction between you and others there, but apparently you did not think that I was successful. I apologize. I have no desire to misrepresent your remarks in anyway.
As for the arguments of the moderates, I also have no desire to mimic their perspective. I am a conservative inerrrantist and have been all my life, not that I feel the need to defend myself on that point. Any similarity that you see between their argument and mind is purely superficial. Later, when I respond more in depth, I will show you why your premise regarding separating Jesus from Scripture is not at all what I have in mind.
Again, thank you for your comments. I'll think about them and respond when I can.
Posted by: Alan Cross | March 03, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Um, that should be "between their argument and MINE," not mind. Fingers moving too fast, it seems.
Posted by: Alan Cross | March 03, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Alan
It is lunch time and I thought I would see if you have responded.
To save you time. I did not mean nor understand you as separating Jesus from scripture. The moderates did that. What I am suggesting is that you are somehow elevating above and separating from scripture itself the knowledge of the death, burial, and resurrection. That this knowledge is objective and that the doctrine of baptism is subjective. I hope this helps you in your response.
Thanks again.
Posted by: Robin Foster | March 03, 2009 at 12:05 PM
I am in favor of welcoming all who believe in Jesus Christ to the communion table. Since when did we start institutionalizing this practice? Even though it is a shared experience I have always thought of the taking of communion as something extremely personal. If a person shares my faith I have no problem sharing my communion experience with them.
Posted by: A Weapon Of Mass Instruction | March 03, 2009 at 01:37 PM
Robin,
What areas of disagreement would you allow between yourself and/or your church and another and still allow the other a place at the communion table? For example, as a Dispensationalist, would you allow an Amillennialist or an Historic Premillennialist a place at the communion table? In doing so would you be affirming his "error?" Would you allow an immersed Baptist who is not a six-day creationist a place at the table and in doing so would you be affirming his "error?" What about a Baptist who is a pacifist?
In light of those questions, can you tell me where, in Scripture, there is a link between a person's error regarding baptism and the Lord's Supper specifically as opposed to these other issues?
I would also be interested to know what your reasoning would be for prohibiting a non-immersed believer to the communion table. You have said that it is an "error." Is that error a sin? Is it disobedience. Those things seem to me to be the logical conclusions of your position, yet you seem reluctant to call them "unrepentant sinners" as others have. Why the reluctance? Can you show me how your belief in that regard is different from others who have openly said that it is unrepentant sin? I'm not baiting you here. I'm genuinely interested because the BI movement as a whole seems to indicate that the issue is much more than one of a mere difference in interpretation or understanding, like I would suspect you would view those other issues I've mentioned.
Posted by: Paul | March 03, 2009 at 03:14 PM
Paul,
Please read my comments carefully, it is not up to me to allow or not allow anyone to the table. I merely state what the church has decided as a basis of fellowship at the table.
It is a command of Christ to be baptized. Through out the book of Acts, baptism was the initial act of obedience. No one (and I repeat) no one denied being baptized.
Concerning Eschatology, Jesus does not command us to be a Dispensationalist, Amillennialist or a Historic Premillennialist. Nor did he command us to be six day creationists, even though I am one. So, I would have no issue with communion with those who hold to some of those other views. Plus to make those items issues is ridiculous for the mere fact that a litany of issues would have to be voiced before the supper is administered. We are talking about the initial act of obedience to Christ. In fact, nearly all denominations throughout history have held to baptism being a prerequisite to the supper.
Are you saying that those who have not been immersed have a legitimate baptism? Or those who believe that one is saved by being baptized have a legitimate baptism? If you, who believes and practices open communion, would allow a saved catholic to participate in your church, would you go with them to their church and partake of communion with them? If no, then why not?
Posted by: Robin Foster | March 03, 2009 at 04:33 PM
Alan and Paul
I am watching my son in a band competition and then going to our associational deacon conference. I probably won't get back to you until the morning.
Posted by: Robin Foster | March 03, 2009 at 05:16 PM
Robin,
Thank you for your reply. I should have been clearer. When I asked if you would allow those folks to the table I had in mind whether or not you believe they belong there, not whether or not you would forcibly prevent them from participating. Would you "allow" it as a concept or theological point, not would you be the LS police.
As to your distinction between things believed and the command of baptism, I'll have to think a little further on that one. On the surface it seems contrary to the very point you are trying to stress - that we are commanded to believe the word. Thus, it would seem to me that faithfulness to the teachings of Scripture is a command of God as well. If the Scriptures teach a certain position regarding creation or eschatology are we not commanded to believe it? Is it somehow optional simply because we don't find the words "Thou shalt believe these words?" In John 8:31 Jesus says that if we abide in his word we are truly his disciples. While that is a declaratory statement, isn't the underlying command that we should abide in his word? Aren't we to abide in all of them, not just the explicit commands?
As to the importance of the initial act of obedience, is that command somehow more important than other commands? I though Dr. Yarnell's point (and yours) is that none of the commands of Christ are optional. Why distinguish baptism from any other command?
Also, your statement that nearly all denominations have viewed baptism as a prerequisite to the supper, that is an interesting point - especially in light of the fact that for the vast majority of Christians throughout the vast majority of Christian history that vast majority has not been baptized. Ironic, anyway.
As much as I would like to answer your questions in the last paragraph, I would prefer to wait until you have answered all of mine, particularly those in the last two paragraphs of my last comment.
Posted by: Paul | March 03, 2009 at 05:58 PM
Robin,
I am going to try and respond to your comments, but you gave me so much to deal with that I could miss something. If I do, please don't think I'm trying to dodge anything intentionally. Just let me know.
Regarding the objective vs. the subjective: The truth of Scripture is objective, including but not limited to the death, burial, and resurrection of Chirst. I am not trying to say that that is objective and other things are subjective. We can objectively know the truth and believe it. But, our level of maturity becomes quite subjective, in my opinion. Someone can look very mature and be doing all the right things on the outside, but their hearts are far from the Lord. Our motives are mixed. We cannot know another man's heart. This is why I said that our unity is based on the objective truth of what Christ has done for us, not on the subjective perspective of our obedience to His commands. I am not trying to elevate one aspect of Christian teaching over another, but Paul did say that he only preached Jesus Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor. 2:1-5), meaning that everything that he proclaimed flowed from the objective reality of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. My Christianity centers on Christ. That is how I read Scripture. Everything flows from Jesus for me.
Jesus, in John 6:31-40 lists four testimonies to Him:
1. John the Baptist (6:35)
2. The work the Father gave Him to do (6:36)
3. The Father Himself (6:37)
4. The Scriptures (6:38-40)
About the Scriptures, Jesus said, "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life."
Even though Jesus is the Word of God, at this point, He separates Himself from the Scriptures by saying that they testify to Him - they are not Him. The Scriptures point us to Jesus, by whom we may be saved when we believe in Him.
Does this mean that anything in Scripture is not true or from God? No. Rather it reiterates that everything in Scripture points us to Christ.
Regarding Baptism and Communion and obedience, I think that it is possible here to make the age-old error of mistaking our positional righteousness in Christ with the righteouse behavior that results from learning to walk in Christ and appropriate His Spirit by faith. In other words, it is possible to confuse justification with sanctification.
I am seeing that both baptism and communion point to our justification in Christ. It is about what Jesus has done for us, not about what we have done for Him in obedience. Ephesians 2:8-9 tells us that "it is by grace that we have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works so that no one can boast."
We do not save ourselves. God saves us. Doesn't both baptism and communion speak to what Jesus has done for us? Doesn't it represent the work of Christ on our behalf? Aren't we remembering Him and not focusing on ourselves? We are not the focus, Christ is. The Bible is very clear about that.
We are positionally united with Christ and one another through the objective truth of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. This is our justification by faith alone. The other commands of the Bible are objectively true as well. But, our sanctification can become subjective because we are often deceived about how righteous our living actually is. We often judge ourselves by a sliding scale of the things that we think are important and we do not follow all the commands of Scripture because we make some more important than others.
This is why I brought up Matthew 25. Jesus clearly related how we treat the poor with our salvation. Yet, as Baptists, we never do so? Why is that? Are we saying that how we treat the poor is less important than baptism? Does this view not assault the Lordship of Christ?
Or, another example would be the way that Baptists saw our racial sins. For years and years, our churches were full of racists and oppressors. Communion was not withheld from them on that basis because it was not commonly accepted that their actions were wrong. This is where I get my view on the subjective nature of our sanctification. But, clearly, their actions were wrong. According to your view, many if not most Southern Baptists from 1845 to when I was a child and young adult in the 1980's and 90's should have been refused communion on the basis of their sin. Would you agree with that?
I have never met a baptist who would agree with that statement, but your view on Communion leads us there because you seem to be saying that we approach the Lord's Table on the basis of our obedience to Christ. You make obedience in baptism the issue. I agree that baptism by immersion should take place just like I think that people should root racism out of their hearts. But, do I withhold communion from racists? Since our racism is so subjective, how do I measure that? You might say that we leave that up to the Holy Spirit and that baptism is an objective act of obedience. Okay. But, caring for the poor in Matthew 25 is an objective act of obedience too (and Jesus relates it to salvation) and we do not use that as criteria.
Many Southern Baptists have defended their ancestors for their racism by saying that they did not know better. That was the environment that they lived in and we need to have grace toward them. I agree. But, the Bible is clear that their views were wrong and were an afront to the gospel. Did we not affirm them in the error by offering them communion? Because their view was developed by what they were taught and the culture that they grew up in, we give them a free pass. We do not say that no Southern Baptists walked with God. But, isn't that also the case for the Presbyterian who was taught infant baptism? Isn't he being sincere in what he has been taught to be true? We offer grace to our racist Baptist ancestors because they were baptized by immersion, but we do not offer it to Methodists or Presbyterians who were not baptized by immersion.
Basically, it seems that your position leads one to either perfectionism (all of the commands of Christ must be obeyed before one can approach the Table), or relativism (some commands are more important than others). Both are wrong. Rather, if we see baptism and communion as demonstrative of what Christ has done for us apart from us, then partaking of it is "proclaiming the Lord's death until He comes" 1 Cor. 11:26.
You are right to say that there is a greater unity that comes from our maturity in the truth. Pointing to Ephesians 4 on that was very wise. When we grow up in the truth, we experience together the positional unity that we already have in Christ, just like when we obey the Lord and grow in holiness (2 Peter 1:3-11), we more fully experience the righteousness that He has imputed to us. I see our unity the same way I see our righteousness. Because of what Christ has done, we are declared righteous. We are declared one in Christ. But, that righteousness and unity is not realized and experienced until we grow in the faith through obedience, knowledge, and maturity. As I have said, Baptism and Communion speaks to justification, not sanctification.
Sorry that my response was so long. I just started writing and if I missed addressing some point of yours, know that I just did this from memory as I wrote. I am sure that I missed something. Thank you for engaging me on this. As you continue to point out weaknesses in my thinking, it causes me to sharpen that much more and to consider deeply your words. Despite what seems to be absolute statements, I am still not fully settled here. I am declaring and argument as I see it, but I am still very open to what you have to say on the matter.
Again, thank you.
Posted by: Alan Cross | March 03, 2009 at 06:26 PM
For me, a key passage, related to this question, is 1 Corinthians 10:16-17:
"Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf."
I think we are all in agreement that the Lord's Supper is a remembrance of the Lord's death for us. However, from this passage, I think it is clear it is also a celebration of our unity as one body. I supppose, it is possible, as some do, to take this to refer to a local congregation, leading them to a position of closed (with members of your own congregation only) communion. Personally, I think that does violence to the import of the concept of the Body of Christ, both in the immediate context of 1 Corinthians, as well as the general context of the NT. There are not a number of different local Bodies of Christ scattered around the world, but, rather one Body. However, even less convincing, in light of this passage, is the close (with only some believers, both within and outside of your own congregation) communion view. This passage clearly says we, who are MANY, are ONE BODY, and WE ALL partake of the one loaf.
The close communion view, from my perspective, seems to communicate, in effect: "we, who are the enlightened few, are a privileged group within the body, and some of us partake of our own little wafer."
Posted by: David Rogers | March 03, 2009 at 06:27 PM
Wes,
You said, "To say that we are simply to make sure we don't have any unconfessed sin before partaking doesn't really fit with the context here in my view. We ought to always be examining ourselves to see that we don't have unconfessed sin in our lives, not just when we come to the Lord's table."
I agree with you there. I think that we too often import Matthew 5:23-24 into our perspective on Communion. It says, "Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift." We should do that whenever we worship or approach the throne. We should always be open to confessing sin and making things right with our brothers, whether we are taking Communion or not.
You say that you think that Paul in 1 Cor. 11:29 is making "a call to consider whether we are rightly related to the rest of the body of Christ." Actually, I think that the context of Paul's admonition in 1 Cor. 11 is that they are denigrating the Lord's Supper which was meant to remember Jesus and proclaim His death until His return. Instead of focusing on Christ and rightly honoring Him and remembering His work for them, thus remembering their justification, they had turned the focus on themselves. They were pushing others away, getting drunk, and some were getting full while others were going hungry. Paul says that they were not even eating the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11:20). Instead, they had made it into something else entirely and were forgetting Christ.
Then, in 1 Cor. 11:23-34, he instructs them on the right meaning of Communion/Lord's Supper by first pointing to Christ and then telling them to treat one another with love. They are to remember Christ, and as a result, express their unity together in Christ. If we do not do this, then we are taking the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner. That is how I read this text. I don't think that it is dealing with our sanctification primarily, but rather, our justification, which of course, plays out in our sanctification. At any rate, Christ comes first.
Regarding your second paragraph, I also can be half-baked in the things I write. There is a good chance that I am being that way now. :) I understand what you are saying.
Clearly, there are different gifts and callings in the church. Not everyone can take part in prison ministry. Jesus is telling us what our lives should reflect, however. I see your point there and I accept it. However (and this is really another topic), we should be diligent to make sure that our people do not just think that because they have given money, they have fulfilled Christ's commands. I know that you would agree with that, so your comment is a non-issue on that point.
As I told Robin, I am seeing another position on this issue emerge and I am declaring it with force, but I am also deeply considering your arguments and am very open to being told that I am wrong. Thank you for engaging as well. I am leaning toward open communion, but before I lock that down, I do want to consider your arguements. I am still open to the idea of a "silver bullet" that I had not considered that reduces what I am saying to mush. I'd much rather conform to the Word of God than to defend my own position. Again, thanks.
Posted by: Alan Cross | March 03, 2009 at 06:46 PM
David,
I think that I would agree with your position here on 1 Cor. 10:16-17. If we are saved by grace through faith, then there are many who are in the Body of Christ who do not see eye to eye with us on our interpretation of Scripture. But again, is our unity based on what Christ has done, or on our understanding of truth? There is a positional unity that comes from what Christ has already done. But, there is a realized, experiential unity that comes from our agreement in the truth and the spiritual maturity that is produced from believing and obeying the Word. This is what Robin speaks to and it is not to be diminished. But, I think that he is confusing our experiential unity that we grow into with our positional unity that is secured by Christ.
The real question is, what does Communion speak to? Our positional unity or our experiential unity? That is worth exploring further, I think.
You also said, "The close communion view, from my perspective, seems to communicate, in effect: 'we, who are the enlightened few, are a privileged group within the body, and some of us partake of our own little wafer.' I can see where that is what can happen if we focus on our understanding rather than what the Lord does. But, I do not have a problem with a local body of believers organizing together around certain perspectives on Scripture to both clearly proclaim the truth and to protect their body from error. But, should Communion be an organizing principle for a local church, or is it the Lord's Supper that is given to all believers everywhere to commemorate the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus? While we do organize separately on the basis of differing interpretations of Scripture (and I think that is okay, to a point), would Communion not serve to remind us that even though we might withdraw from one another on one basis, we are still unified in Christ? If so, then sharing Communion with other believers might be the biblical imperative to proclaim the gospel and our unity with other believers, instead of an organizing principle for a local body of believers that is separate from other believers on the basis of the understanding of doctrine.
That was a new thought for me based on 1 Cor. 10:16-17, so I don't know if it is "half-baked" or not, as Wes said. Thoughts?
Posted by: Alan Cross | March 03, 2009 at 07:10 PM
One other thing: I guess that my point in bringing up Matthew 25 is to say that once you get into saying that obedience is necessary for communion, where do you stop? If Communion speaks to what Christ has done for us, then isn't faith in Christ resulting in salvation what is required to partake?
I submit Galatians 3:10-14 to you on this discussion:
10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." 14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
Posted by: Alan Cross | March 03, 2009 at 07:28 PM
David,
Your comment reminded me of the historical practice of the early church regarding communion. Not only did they use a common loaf, but each local church would take a piece of the loaf they used in communion and send it with a messenger to other nearby churches for use in their observance of communion as a way of signifying their unity together in Christ. Apparently they did not view it as simply the practice of a single local body, but they saw it as a means of identifying with the larger church of all those who confessed Christ. [Info taken from Justo Gonzalez's The Story of Christianity, vol. 1]
Posted by: Paul | March 03, 2009 at 08:38 PM
Alan,
You say: "I do not have a problem with a local body of believers organizing together around certain perspectives on Scripture to both clearly proclaim the truth and to protect their body from error."
Though I have been challenged by the view that "open communion" necessarily leads to "open membership," (I believe Bunyan adopted this view, if I am not mistaken; and Piper, and Henderson Hills church in Edmond, OK, have wrestled with it), I think I agree with you. There is a place for organizing congregationally on the basis of certain doctrinal distinctives. In some ways, this is a pragmatic necessity. You cannot, for example, maintain the practice in a local congregation of having female elders and not having female elders at the same time. And yet, just because I do not believe the Bible allows for female elders, and thus choose to join a church that maintains that practice, that does not mean I must also consider those believers who see this matter diffently from me to be anathema, or unworthy of Christian fellowship. Something similar holds true with baptism. Though there are certain groups, such as some Evang. Free churches (from what I understand) that practice both believers baptism and infant baptism at the same time, it is a position that pretty much obliges people from both sides to compromise some on their convictions. I can see how it is preferable to allow those from both positions to consistently practice their convictions, yet not anathemamtize the others, nor "disfellowship" them, at the same time.
Of course, then, there are other matters that kick some groups and congregations over into the realm of reprobate gospel-deniers. In that case, we have no business maintaining a facade of "ecumenical unity." Our unity is on the basis of the gospel, and a true heart-changing relationship with Christ, not just the name "Christian." Our cooperation on certain projects, even with true believers, for pragmatic reasons, must, at times, be more limited, though.
Paul,
That is a very interesting bit of information. I was not aware of that. Thanks for sharing it.
Posted by: David Rogers | March 03, 2009 at 10:50 PM
You all are doing an excellent job of arguing the theological views on this....in much better ways than I am capable of. My issue with the BI guys is that they're doing their best to put themselves into a position of high priest....where they decide the will and truths of God. And what really ticks me off is that they always cover their arguments in "scripture" so that to argue with their point is to seemingly go against God. These are the guys that consistently try to exclude anyone who doesn't think 100% like them....and we wonder why the SBC is in decline....enough....back to the meaningful discussion on theological issues.
Posted by: Grady Bauer | March 04, 2009 at 05:02 AM