tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20166943.post72202082069300098..comments2024-03-28T14:43:35.296-05:00Comments on Ministry and Music - Seeking the Old Paths: Participants in the Lord's Supper -- defining Baptist viewsR. L. Vaughnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10992710377193518029noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20166943.post-59432636863133785402007-06-10T19:56:00.000-05:002007-06-10T19:56:00.000-05:00Thought I'd add this thought about "correspondence...Thought I'd add this thought about "correspondence-only" or "like faith and order" communion.<BR/><BR/>Churches that adopt this way of observing the Lord's Supper have an intriguing variance of the way they approach it. Some approach it by advertising their communion days to sister days in a true effort to get them to attend. Some others approach it by allowing them to particpate if they happen to be there, but making little or no effort to let sister churches know when they observe the Lord's Supper.<BR/><BR/>Just thought someone might find that interesting.R. L. Vaughnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10992710377193518029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20166943.post-68862508517824092472007-06-09T18:29:00.000-05:002007-06-09T18:29:00.000-05:00Jim, I agree. Baptism is not an option, and the un...Jim, I agree. Baptism is not an option, and the unbaptized are not qualified to partake of the Lord's Supper.R. L. Vaughnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10992710377193518029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20166943.post-66037482778391353832007-06-09T13:19:00.000-05:002007-06-09T13:19:00.000-05:00I guess the point is, baptism is not an option, it...I guess the point is, baptism is not an option, it is a command. The non-baptized, is therefore, living in disobedience and not fully qualified to partake of the supper. My wife was immersed, but remains an Anglican, and in my mind qualified to partake. She disqualified herself to save any controversy under my pastorates.<BR/><BR/>If one truly believes that scripture teaches another form of baptism, I may disagree with their interpretation, but who am I to correct them? Are they not still living in obedience to the command? I have the right to restrict church membership to the immersed only, but that is a given in Baptist circles.<BR/><BR/>I like to think that fellowship in Christ is the most important factor, joining us all in one body. The restrictions in Baptist Churches is our prerogative, as it an Anglican's prerogative to so interpret scripture to include infant baptism, confirmation and membership as a prerequisite to communion.<BR/><BR/>Hope that clarifies my viewpoint.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>JimAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20166943.post-45829072921431392052007-06-08T18:38:00.000-05:002007-06-08T18:38:00.000-05:00One thing I want people to think about is that rat...One thing I want people to think about is that rather than unrestricted versus restricted, Baptist views are all restricted, with the least restricted view, on one end of the spectrum, being restricted to believers only; and the most restricted, on the other end of the spectrum, being restricted to local church members only.<BR/><BR/>A common plea for open communion states "It is the Lord's table, and we should not exclude any the Lord has invited." This sounds good and finds a sympathetic ear among many people. But all who are sincere in their convictions do not wish to exclude any the Lord has invited. The difference is in the understanding of whom the Lord has invited.R. L. Vaughnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10992710377193518029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20166943.post-77489988159744275962007-06-08T18:18:00.000-05:002007-06-08T18:18:00.000-05:00Jim, thanks for the comment. One thing you mention...Jim, thanks for the comment. One thing you mention points out something I was trying to show. When you say ""As baptized believers we will observe the Lord's Supper", I assume by "baptism" you mean immersion. In actual practice, do you define it that way, or leave it up to the participant to decide what constitutes immersion? <BR/><BR/>On his blog, in response to my question about communion, Wade Burleson wrote, "We say to people who are with us in church that they are welcome to join as at communion if they are a Christian and have made their faith in Christ known through baptism. We don't define baptism..." So, in that example, baptism is not defined, but rather left to the participant to define.R. L. Vaughnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10992710377193518029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20166943.post-11068652909808945452007-06-07T21:37:00.000-05:002007-06-07T21:37:00.000-05:00Quoting Mr. Spurgeon, "I dare not sit with Baptist...Quoting Mr. Spurgeon, "I dare not sit with Baptist alone" The Shadow of the Broad Brim, Day p.145 He called it open communion.<BR/><BR/>Tickets were to control occupation in the Tabernacle because of his paranoia after the great fire, which put him in a great depression for weeks, and continued throughout his life, disabling him for weeks at a time. The tickets were available to saved and unsaved alike, but seating was controlled.<BR/><BR/>I am a firm believer in closed communion, but I leave participation up to the conscience of each participant. I would never police the table. My invitation would read as follows: "As baptized believers we will observe the Lord's Supper. Let a man judge for himself, and partake according to his own conscience."<BR/><BR/>My wife remains an Anglican to this day. She was invited to partake in one of my pastorates, but she refused and went to the Anglican Church for communion. I wouldn't have objected to her participation.<BR/><BR/>I would not get so picky as to where a person was immersed, as would some churches. The Baptist Church does not have a monopoly on either the gospel truth or on baptism by immersion. Even the Anglican Church will immerse a believer upon request, and do so on the mission field.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com