So here is something that I was discussing with a pastor in my local association. Do most churches practice closed or at least close communion? If someone comes to Christ in your church, and the next week you hold the observance of the Lord’s Supper, do you allow that individual to participate?
I know at many of the churches I have attended, we just ask that people are believers before they participate in this act, but the Baptist Faith and Message states:
Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.
Seems pretty clear that unless a person has been baptised by immersion in an orthodox, Bible believing church (not sprinkled, and no LDS Baptism) then they can receive communion.
According to the BFM, you must be baptised before you take the Lord’s Supper. Do you have to be baptised in a Baptist church, or can it be an E-Free, CMA or Non-Denom church? If you have never been baptised, but are a believer in Christ can you take communion? Should the BFM be re-worded, or do more churches just need to fall in line with it?
In our church it is agreed that every true believer should partake in the Lord’s Supper. I never thought our practice has gone beyond the SB norm set out in the BF&M.
Should I now burn my superiors at stakes with the charge of heresy?
No, just burn them some steaks on the grill before raising the subject.
You crack me up.
Why must you be baptised in a church? Baptism came after conversion in the bible and happened at the closest body of water. I don’t think it HAS to happen at the baptismal pool at church, though I understand wanting to profess your faith to your church family. But if your family gathers with you at the river, or the pond, lake, pool, etc and you are baptised, so be it. An LDS baptism is not a baptism of faith as they are a cult. However, if the person has been converted, then their baptism is between them and God.… Read more »
And to directly answer your question, (sorry got off track!): Acts 2:41-42
“So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.”
Order goes: converstion, baptism, entrance into community, lord’s supper.
This is one area where I disagree with the BF&M… I understand the sentiment behind it: baptism is the public profession of faith and should be the first primary Christian act of a new believer. Therefore baptism would naturally precede communion. But… The Lord’s Supper is a meal we Christians do to celebrate the death and resurrection of Jesus. It is primarily a meal we do as a church body, but at times there will be Christian visitors from other churches who join our body for a day for whatever reason. I equate denying communion to someone as the same… Read more »
One of the things we tried to change here in AR a few years back was to remove the language in the By-laws that prohibited churches from interpreting BF&M as allowing open communion. It was approved by 65% when it needed 2/3rds. If we enforced that provision, we would eliminated at least half the churches in this state from being participants with the state. I state that the Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers, but then express that it’s up to you and your conscience. We’ve had Methodist visitors feel fine about taking it, which made me feel validated with… Read more »
Nathan Finn had some pretty good articles a while back about close communion and making baptism a prerequisite. He made a really strong case. I wish I could find those and link to them.
I’d have to check, but I seem to remember my theology class categorizing “open” communion as not requiring one be a believer. As I said, I’m not going to look it up, but maybe one of the whizz kids can chime in.
I do think the BFM could be problematic as it is worded. It is not a problem for our church. If a Presbyterian wanted to join our Baptist Church they would have to be baptized by immersion. I see no problem establishing our requirements.
Frank,
“Open” communion is generally open to all Christians, by implicit profession, rather than explicit; to wit, if one considers himself to have faith, he may partake. The distinction between “open” and “closed” communion regards local church or denominational membership and relations.
I was thinking I read somewhere about a controversy over fellowshipping with churches who allowed non-professing people to take communion.
I was aware of the typical use that you point out.
The Bible says “Let each man examine himself…”, and that’s what our pastor says, and does.
Here is what we do: when we do the Lord’s Supper, I explain what we’re doing. I explain why we’re doing it. I explain that Scripture teaches this as a remembrance action for followers of Christ. I express that we as Baptists hold that individuals need to be committed followers of Christ that have followed in obedience of Believer’s Baptism and should not be living with unrepentant sin. We take a few minutes of time to reflect on that. However, I then point out that it’s really between them and the Lord God Almighty, that the deacons will not be… Read more »
I agree with Mike. As the “ordinary” means of communion, then the BFM is correct: it illustrates the normative order for receiving communion among those who are members of a Baptist church. But, when a Presbyterian or Methodist who was baptized as an infant and professes the same evangelical faith in Christ, then the ordinary means of communion do not apply. The table must be open to them as a sign of their common union with Christ in the body of Christ.
Our policy for visitors and communion is: “If you profess Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, have been baptized, are a member of a local church & not under church discipline at this time, we welcome you to join us in the Lord’s Supper as our guest and as our brothers & sisters in Christ.”
Squirrel
We don’t ask where or when they were baptized or what local church they are a member of. Those questions would come up if they became regular attendees and/or wanted to join our church.
Squirrel
We don’t ask where or when or how they were baptized…
Squirrel, This is pretty much exactly what we do. Every time we do the LS (which is once a month), we lay out five criteria for taking the Supper: 1) That you be a Christian, believing that Jesus Christ is your only hope for salvation. 2) That you be a Scripturally-baptized believer (often we say here that baptism is the entrance into the fellowship of the Church and the Lord Supper is the continuing communion with fellow believers in the Holy Spirit). 3) That you be a member of some local congregation of believers or be seeking to join a… Read more »
Great questions and observations. I’m wrestling/studying through this issue myself as it relates to my kids. The interesting thing to me about the call to “examine yourself” is this: What are we examining ourselves for? To prove to ourselves that our walk matches our talk? But our hearts are deceitful… To show that we are Christians? But Jesus served the last supper to Judas… Must a person be a Christian to receive communion? Paul in 2 Corinthians 13 tells us to examine ourselves to make sure we are in the faith. Is that the same kind of examination that he… Read more »
Jeff, I think that you are correct if you are suggesting that the context means “unworthy” refers to more than just unsaved. I would agree with that.
Yet, the term “unworthy,” in any context of the Lord Supper would certainly include unsaved. If Christ makes us worthy by becoming our righteousness (the only way we can be worthy), then someone unsaved isn’t even at the right dock, let alone about to board the right ship.
Hi Frank, The “unworthy manner” of 1 Cor 11 (or “unworthily” in the old KJV) describes the manner of partaking, not the person doing the partaking. As I once heard it, “unworthily” is an adverb. Adverbs modify verbs, not nouns. The “unworthiness” lies in the manner of partaking, not the person doing the partaking. It does not describe what the person is that partakes; rather it describes how the person partakes. Whether or not the person is worthy is irrelevant in the context of the passage. Another way to look at it is this: it is not about the kind… Read more »
I’m not following your logic. How does a “verb” become “guilty” of something? The adverbial clause has an antecedent reference to the person undertaking the action. It is the person that becomes guilty because it is the person that makes the manner of taking “unworthy.” Adverbs modify verbs (or othe adverbs) as a matter of primary grammar, but as a matter of secondary syntax, the phrase within the context points back to the person — hence, the assignment of guilt. Guilt is related to the “Whoever” (a person) not the action. The focus of the warning is not the “manner”… Read more »
Actually, I think Jim is correct, the subject is the person, who is guilty, but the worthiness applies to the manor of taking. Worthy modified taking, and the guilt is what is applied to the subject. Shall we do some sentence diagramming?
Hi Frank, With all due respect, I don’t think I’m confusing grammar and syntax. The Greek word for “unworthily” is “anarxios” (long o). There is no clause. It is an adverb standing alone. Adverbs relate to the act, not the actor. Paul goes on to define what eating and drinking unworthily (or in an unworthy manner) is – it is eating and drinking not discerning the Lord’s body. Some Corinthians were doing what Jeff described a couple of posts up. They were not discerning the Lord’s body (the church) in the meal. They were discerning themselves. Therefore, they were eating… Read more »
You are entitled to your opinion. I’ll stick with my mine. The context makes it clear that the focus is the guilt of the person because of his actions.
Actions apart from people have no morality nor incur any guilt.
Hi Frank,
I’d like for us to be sure we are hearing each other correctly before we agree to disagree.
Which actions?
I agree with you if the actions are eating and drinking in an unworthy manner.
Other than eating/drinking in an unworthy manner, what actions are there (asked honestly, not rhetorically nor smart-alecky)?
Jim G.
yeah, Jeff. Good comment.
I think a big part of preparation before communion is to examine one’s conscience carefully, and if need be, to repent and make confession (in the way in which you believe to be pleasing to God);
but there is something else . . . if you have had a problem with another which is unresolved, you are supposed to first go and reconcile with that person, before receiving communion.
I don’t know if you are taught this in the Southern Baptist faith,
but I believe that there is some scriptural basis for it.
Really? And, of course, you can prove that from scripture?
Jesus said “presenting an offering” not “receiving communion”.
Well . . . do you think Christ meant that it was forbidden to curse people out of one side of the mouth while offering praise to God out of the other side ?
Yes Joe, she can. She is absolutely right on this.
1 Corinthians 10:16-17,21 16The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17For we [being] many are one bread, [and] one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. ..21Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.
1 Corinthians 11:27 27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
And NEITHER one of those say anything about “If you have a problem with someone”. She was OBVIOUSLY referring to what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount which had NOTHING to do with the Lord’s Supper.
Now, would harboring a sin like unforgiveness in your heart make you unfit to take the cup? I would say so. But that’s not what she said.
Jeff, I completely agree, in fact says if you partake of the body and the blood without recognizing the BODY. Not the body and blood, but the body, the church, the bride of Christ. This covers the saved part, if you are not saved then you are not part of the body, but the context at large. Communion is a place where the body comes together and partakes together with one another. If we have to be worthy in any other way, which one of us is “worthy” to take communion. Most of our juice would become wine before anyone… Read more »
Dan,
I totally agree with you. The admonition about recognizing the body or discerning the body isn’t some mystical command about the bread become the “real presence” rather it has to do with the body of Christ as in the Church.
I have long lamented the idea that Christians should not take communion if they “have sin in their lives” or some other such nonsense. The idea that we have to get all “forgived up” before partaking is, imo, dead wrong. If we truly did not partake if we have “sin in our lives” then we would never take it. It is the very fact of the sin in our lives that should drive us to the table.
Um this is totally off topic, but am I the only one who has noticed the Fruits of Galilee marmalade advertisement in the upper right hand corner? The finest Holy land fruit? Really?
I guess my ad blocker has that one blocked–in fact, I see no ads. I see a spot labeled “Sponsor” but there’s nothing there.
Although that sounds funny.
I read it and cracked up. Apparently according to the ad it makes for a good Mother’s day present. 🙂
Baptism’s history as related to Southern Baptists is quite interesting. Baptists have varied from open to closed to open to closed communion in every generation. One of the factors in closed communion among Southern Baptists has been the influence of Landmarkers. But back past them, the general concern is for closed communion due to the requirement of baptism by immersion on profession of faith. Bunyan’s church was open communion and ope membership (according to the knowledge I have), and, in the end, it becam mostly Presbyterian (but I am not even sure of that). Spurgeon’s tabernacle was more open communion,… Read more »