Baptism and Church Communion

“To the Christian reader. 

“When it pleased God, of his free Grace, to cause me to make a serious inquiry after Jesus Christ, and to give me some taste of his pardoning Love, the sense of which did engage my heart with desires to be obedient to his will in all things, I used all indeavers both by Converse with such as were able, and also by diligently searching the Scriptures, with earnest desires of God, that I might be directed in a right way of Worship; and after some time concluded, that the safest way was to follow the Footsteps of the Flock (namely) that Order laid down by Christ and his Apostles, and practiced by the Primitive Christians in their times; which I found to be, that after Conversion they were Baptized, added to the Church, and continued in the Apostles’ Doctrine, Fellowship, Breaking of Bread, and Prayer; according to which I thought my self bound to be Conformable. And having continued in the Profession of the same for these forty years, although through many Weaknesses, and Fears, Temptations, and Sufferings, yet not without some Witness from God of his gracious Acceptance and Strength to this very day: The sense I have of my own Weakness and Inability, would have been a Bar to me to appear in this Publick way, did I not see a necessity lying upon me for the Truth’s sake, and the sakes of many, by reason of some that have lately risen up to weaken, if not to make void, that great Ordinance of Baptism, by indeavouring to maintain, that all persons that Believe, although they never did, nor do Practice the same, may partake of the Ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, and all other Gospel instituted Duties.”

A Sober Discourse of Right to Church-Communion, William Kiffin, 1681 [“…we dare not break that Rule and Order by which we find the Primitive Saints walkt…” (pp. 130-31)]

Looking at the Lord’s Supper

I Corinthians 11:23-29 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

Notice five views or ways we ought to “look at” or approach the Lord’s Supper. As we observe the Lord’s Supper, may these thoughts enter and affect our hearts and minds.

Five Looks of the Lord’s Supper

1. Appreciation (gratitude; thankful recognition). In the Lord’s Supper we look upward in thanks for God’s provision, verse 24 “when he had given thanks.”

In everything give thanks. In general, we are to be thankful for God’s provisions for us. All we have is the Lords and we owe him all. He supplies us bread and drink. In the context of the Lord’s Supper, he supplies the bread and wine, which is his body and his blood. Let us be thankful that God provided a Lamb for the offering, a Lamb to take away the sin of the world.

2. Retrospection (the act or process of looking back on things past). In the Lord’s Supper we look backward in memory of the crucifixion, verse 24-25 “this do in remembrance of me.”

As we thank him for his life and blood, we look backward in memory to the event of the past. The event from all eternity. The event that shapes the future. The crucifixion is why the Son of God came into world, to give his life a ransom for many. It is backward in time; it is an historical event. In looking back, we are brought face to face with the past, the present, and the future. But not just the event – the man of the event – “this do in remembrance of me!”

3. Manifestation (an act of demonstration; making evident or showing plainly). In the Lord’s Supper we look outward in proclamation to others, verse 26 “ye do shew the Lord’s death.”

The Lord’s Supper teaches the truth; the Lord’s Supper paints a picture. It manifests in bread and wine the Lord’s death. Those who participate and those who watch see what we cannot say. We preach the gospel with our tongues. We praise his name with our lips. But here in the Lord’s Supper, in common elements from our common experience, we portray the truth in tones we cannot speak and in tunes we cannot sing. Oh, the mystery of the divine.

4. Prospection (the act of looking forward). In the Lord’s Supper we look forward in hope of our Lord’s return, verse 26 “till he come.”

In terms of frequency or the time of the Lord’s Supper, it hard to find a specific schedule that must be followed. But we are to do it “oft” and do it “till he comes.” While looking backward to the marvelous death of our Lord, we are reminded that he yet lives and that he is coming back again. Every time we eat this bread and drink this cup we ought to whisper, at least in our minds if not on our tongues, “Even so, come, Lord Jesus.”

5. Introspection (an act of the examining of one’s own thoughts, impressions, and feelings). In the Lord’s Supper we look inward in examination of our participation, verse 28 “let a man examine himself.”

The Lord’s Supper is not an impersonal and perfunctory experience in which we just go through outward formal motions of eating and drinking some symbolic thing. It calls us to introspection, an examination of our deepest motives of observance. Look not to determine your worthiness, for we are all unworthy and yet made worthy by the blood of Jesus. Drink it worthily, a description of the manner of observance rather than the merit of the person observing, discerning the Lord’s body as you partake of him in that which symbolizes him. The examination is not to keep us from eating and drinking, but to prepare us for eating and drinking! Let a man examine himself, and so – in that self-examined state – let him eat and drink.

To these five looks in verses 23-29 we may add a sixth, where we look from –

6. Participation (or cooperation, an instance of acting together in a common purpose or activity). In the Lord’s Supper we look from inside the congregation, verse 18 “when ye come together in the church” (cf. also, “unto the church of God which is at Corinth,” 1:2)

The Lord’s Supper is not an individual, personalized, or isolated experience. It is a church ordinance, observed when the local congregation gratefully and prayerfully comes together to remember the Lord’s substitutionary death on the cross for our sins.

May we (in the assembly) solemnly, thankfully, and joyfully commune together and with our Lord – looking upward, looking backward, looking outward, looking forward, and looking inward. Praise ye the Lord!

One cup and no Sunday School

Some interesting information about the doctrine and history of a minority Stone-Campbell Restorationist group – the one communion cup and no Sunday School churches of Christ.

• A Brief History of the One-Cup and Non-Sunday School Movement
• Oddities in Pattern Theology
• First Day of the Week: Acts 20: 7

I found it intriguing; perhaps some of you will as well.

Whither have we come?

Whither have we come? Swift, safe, and sanitary “Supper,” but is it the Lord’s?

Luke 9:23-24 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.

We Christians in the United States might well be called Christianity-lite, or diet Christianity. The comments on this post suggest we are not ready to deny ourselves and take up a cross, but rather prefer what is convenient and safe, and come to communion with at least a wee bit of irreverence.

The not-too-much Fellowship Cup ® sold by Lifeway (and many others, I expect) is advertised as “Prefilled” and “Ready to Serve,” with “Easy Access to Elements” that provides “‘One Pass’ Serving.” No refrigeration is needed! And it’s “guaranteed to be fresh” (if used by the date stamped on the box)![i] What more could the modern Christian ask for to knock out a quick communion and get home to watch the game or hurry to a favorite restaurant? Key take-aways I saw in the comments:

• convenient
• health and safety
• saves lots of time

In addition, one comment reveals a disdain for church communion itself, which might be an underlying part of the problem.

“I can ‘do this’ by remembering Him whenever I eat or drink. No officiant or rules to adhere to...”

Now, I am not opposed to sanitation and care, but have we gone a bit nuts? When I was a child the church passed one cup from which all the participants drank. There were no mass outbreaks of disease and death, though it is possible that someone got sick in the process. You can get sick at the game, in the restaurant, and at Wal-Mart, too. I notice many who have changed their church practices have not changed those other practices. In the latest issue of Voice of Faith, Glen Stuart censured the general Covid-era trend, “It cannot be justified to venture out into the world for six days and neglect the church on the Lord’s Day.”

’Twas for my sins my dearest Lord hung on the cursed tree, and groaned away a dying life for thee, my soul, for thee! He gave his back to the smiters, and his cheeks to them that plucked off the hair. They pierced his hands and his feet. Jesus bare our sins in his own body on the tree, in pain and agony and blood. Yet when we remember his death, we want it to be painless – prepackaged, safe, sanitary, and soon over with? Shame.

Call me old-fashioned (I know you already have), but there is something significant to be said for beginning the communion service reverently with the scriptural symbol of one body / one loaf and one cup. And perhaps, just perhaps, we also should take our time observing the Lord’s Supper rather than saving lots of time?

---

[i] However, TrueVine Chalice Prefilled Communion Cup is “easier and quieter to open.” It has an “elegant shape” as well.

In Remembrance of our Lord

 ...in some hymns.

1. ’Twas on that dark, that doleful night

When powers of earth and hell arose

Against the Son of God's delight

And friends betrayed him to his foes.

2. Before the mournful scene began,

He took the bread and blessed and brake.

What love through all his actions ran!

What wondrous words of grace he spake!

3. “This Is my body, broke for sin;

Receive and eat the living food”;

Then took the cup and blessed the wine:

“Tis the new covenant in my blood.”

4. “Do this,” he said, “till time shall end,

In memory of your dying Friend.

Meet at my table and record

The love of your departed Lord.”

5. Jesus, thy feast we celebrate;

We show thy death, we sing thy name,

Till thou return and we shall eat

The marriage supper of the Lamb. (Isaac Watts)

When I survey the wondrous cross

On which the Prince of glory died,

My richest gain I count but loss,

And pour contempt on all my pride.

See from His head, His hands, His feet,

Sorrow and love flow mingled down!

Did e’er such love and sorrow meet,

Or thorns compose so rich a crown? (Isaac Watts)

See the cross, the cross of Jesus,

Crimson with his own life’s blood;

Thus he died, lest we should perish,

Wondrous love! Thou Son of God. (Silas G. Odell)

Thou Man of grief, remember me,

Thou never canst thyself forget.

Thy last expiring agony,

Thy fainting pangs and bloody sweat. (Charles Wesley)

Alas, and did my Savior bleed

And did my Sovereign die?

Would He devote that sacred head

For such a worm as I?

Was it for sins that I had done

He groaned upon the tree?

Amazing pity, grace unknown

And love beyond degree. (Isaac Watts)

As on the Cross the Saviour hung 

And wept, and bled, and died, 

He poured salvation on a wretch 

That languished at his side. (Samuel Stennett)

Agonizing in the garden,

Lo! your Master prostrate lies;

On the bloody tree behold him,

Hear him cry before he dies;

“It is finished!”

Sinners will this not suffice? (Joseph Hart)

There he bled and died, an off’ring

For the world of sinners lost;

Oh, what pangs his visage marring!

Sinner, this thy soul has cost. (Daniel S. Warner)

He the true David, Israel’s King,

Blessed and loved of God,

To save us rebels dead in sin,

Paid his own dearest blood. (Isaac Watts)

I’m not ashamed to own my Lord

Or to defend his cause;

Maintain the honor of his word,

The glory of his cross. (Isaac Watts)

Must Jesus bear the cross alone,

And all the world go free?

No, there’s a cross for everyone,

And there’s a cross for me. (Thomas Shepherd)

I didn’t know

– You still don’t know

A recent video clip of popular evangelical preacher Francis Chan suggests this Protestant child may be looking for his Roman mother. His statements include:

• I didn’t know that for the first 1,500 years of church history everyone saw it [the Eucharist/Lord’s supper] as the literal body and blood of Christ. And it wasn’t till 500 years ago someone popularized a thought that it’s just a symbol and nothing more. I didn’t know that!
• ...for the first time, someone put a pulpit in the front of the gathering, because, before that, it was always the body and blood of Christ that was central to the gathering.
• I say that because the Church is more divided than at any time in history...And for a thousand years there was just one church. We are so used to growing up at a time when there are literally over 30,000 Christian denominations.

All of this is babbling nonsense, for anyone of a mind to check it out and not predisposed to just accept it!

It is rank falsehood to claim that “for the first 1,500 years of church history” that transubstantiation (that the bread & wine is the literal body and blood of Christ) was the universal view. This is a false even if one accepts the false notion that the Roman Catholic Church is the true church. Beginning with the Bible itself, there is no anthropophagite fetish attached to the Lord’s supper.[i] Keith Mathison successfully traces the emergence of transubstantiation to a ninth century debate between Paschasius Radbertus, the abbot of the monastery of Corbie, and Ratramnus, a theologian and monk in northern France. The popular Roman Catholic term “transubstantiation” probably cannot be found before the 11th century. The Fourth Lateran Council (Canon 1) officially adopted it as Roman dogma in 1215.[ii] The real truth is, as Nicholas Batzig writes, “Explanations about the presence of Christ in the Supper have been vast and nuanced throughout church history.” Roman apologists often cite quotes that certainly seem to produce fruit of their doings, but often lift them from their context – and further do not cite statements that will contradict their view.

When He so earnestly expressed His desire to eat the passover, He considered it His own feast; for it would have been unworthy of God to desire to partake of what was not His own. Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure… this figure of the body of Christ… He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed” in His blood,” affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh… you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood…used the figure of wine to describe His blood.[iii]

Eusebius of Caesarea clearly calls the bread and wine “symbols.”

For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood…bread to use as the symbol of His Body…[iv]

Other quotes might be supplied. Serious research of the early writings about the communion of the body and blood of Christ would do us well. In that research, all of us will likely find things with which to agree and things with which to disagree. Most of all, for my purpose, it will ostracize any thought that transubstantiation has always been taught and debunk any idea that only 500 years ago it began to be taught that the elements are symbols for the literal body and blood of Christ .

In the second quote, Chan is basically talking in terms of architecture, the structure of a building![v] What is at the center of the building, a pulpit or an altar. The New Testament church is not a physical building but a people. Most often they met in homes, which likely had neither of these “architectural” features. Altars and pulpits, rather, are historical developments, not inherent parts of the nature of the church. Both preaching and the Lord’s supper had their place in the New Testament and their importance should not be overlooked. They are not in competition, but complementary – especially if you don’t attach superstitious notions to them. Further, even a cursory glance at the book of Acts reveals preachers standing before people to preach God’s message.

Finally, Chan throw out a highly suspect number of Protestant denominations, along with the lie that “for a thousand years there was just one church.” There is so much wrong with this statement. The 33,000 number is bogus, as demonstrated in this article. In We Need to Stop Saying That There Are 33,000 Protestant Denominations, the Catholic author of it states, “Catholics need to stop citing this number, not only because it is outlandishly false but because it is not the point how many Protestant denominations there are.” Though I cannot endorse all in the article, a perusal of it demonstrates just how problematic is that number. I can only imagine that Francis Chan endorses Roman Catholicism as the “one church.” This is not true, even considered within the realm of the highly authoritarian offshoot of Christianity that it is. Worse, Catholicism wreaked havoc on New Testament Christianity – setting up shop with iron-handed heresy, waging war on the churches that stood for the simplicity of the gospel, “killed God’s prophets, and digged down his altars.”

For all Francis Chan’s “I didn’t knows” the fact is, “You still don’t know.” Wake up. Smell the roses. Study history, and read your Bible.

---

[i] After saying, “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,” Jesus explained, “the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” – indicating he is speaking in a spiritual sense, not a literal physical sense.

[ii] This council also puts salvation in the “Universal (Roman Catholic) Church.”

[iii] Against Marcion, Book IV, Chapter 40, from a Catholic website. Tertullian’s argument is in reference to the teaching of Marcion that Jesus only appeared to have a human body. Marcion denied the physical nature of the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

[iv] Demonstratio Evangelica, Book VIII

[v] Chans “replaced the altar with a pulpit” idea seems to be a variation of the oft-repeated charge that “The reformers replaced the body of Christ with a book. The Bible was the replacement for the presence of Jesus [i.e., in the Eucharist].” See, for example, H. J. Marshall, The Church or the Bible? One was Commissioned to Teach, Boothwyn, PA: Marshall Publishing Company, 1993, p. 68.

Wesley communion quote

This excerpt is posted as an example of theology of John Wesley and the Methodists. J. R. Graves referred to it in The Great Carrollton Debate with Jacob Ditzler in order to prove they believe that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrament that confers grace and is even offered to the unregenerate to secure that grace.

John Wesley presented his view in the midst of his conflict with the Moravians at Fetter Lane in 1740. In his journal he summarized his teachings of the occasion:

I showed at large, (1) that the Lord’s Supper was ordained by God to be a means of conveying to men either preventing or justifying, or sanctifying grace, according to their several necessities; (2) that the persons for whom it was ordained are all those who know and feel that they want the grace of God, either to restrain them from sin, or to show their sins forgiven, or to renew their souls in the image of God; (3) that inasmuch as we come to his table, not to give him anything but to receive whatsoever he sees best for us, there is no previous preparation indispensably necessary, but a desire to receive whatsoever he pleases to give; and (4) that no fitness is required at the time of communicating but a sense of our state, of our utter sinfulness and helplessness; every one who knows he is fit for hell being just fit to come to Christ, in this as well as all other ways of his appointment.

The Works of John Wesley, Bicentennial Edition, Richard P. Heitzenrater, editor, Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1984, Volume 19: Journal and Diaries II (1738-1743), p. 159

Why is the Lord’s Supper reserved for believers only?

In the past Baptists have debated over the restrictions on communion, often using the terms open, close, and closed.[i] A decade ago I wrote about “theoretical unrestricted communion” as the belief that there are absolutely no restrictions placed on who can take communion. In practice, this would mean actively soliciting members of other religions and even the non-religious to participate in the observing of the Lord’s Supper. My understanding at the time was that for Baptists this could only be theoretical, in that they at the least believe the Lord’s Supper is for God’s people and is ideally restricted to them. Probably that was not accurate then, but I am certain that it is not now true. As ecumenism, liberalism, and tolerationism have made their inroads among Baptists, many of these now ask, “Why is it reserved only for born again believers?” The answer, to many, is that there is no limitation or barrier to observing the Lord’s Supper, and all who wish to participate are welcomed.[ii]

The Lord’s Supper is intended for the Lord’s disciples. This can be seen in the following.

1. It is a memorial or remembrance of the Lord’s death (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25).
2. It is an expectation of the Lord’s coming (1 Corinthians 11:26; Matthew 26:29).
3. It was observed when the church came together out of the world rather than in the world (Acts 2:42; 20:7ff; 1 Corinthians 11:18).
4. It is the new “Passover feast” of those who observe it in sincerity and truth (1 Corinthians 5:6-8; cf. John 4:24).
5. It is a communion for the partakers of “that one bread,” Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16-17).
6. It is not ecumenical, in the sense of embracing other religions (1 Corinthians 10:20-21).
7. It requires a self-examination and discernment in relation to the body and blood of Jesus Christ, with associated judgment (1 Corinthians 11:27-29).

The points above might be fleshed out for greater edification, but I present them in skeleton form for the time being. The point of this post is not to jettison the idea of closed communion for a more open version for all who believe, but to briefly point out that “all who believe” is the lowest common denominator for communion, and we must begin building on the biblical truth from that foundation.

---

[i] Although these terms don’t always mean the same things to all Baptists.

[ii] John Wesley, for example, believed that communion was a means of grace and that someone invited to the table might be converted to Christ at the table (The The Works of John Wesley, Bicentennial Edition, Richard P. Heitzenrater, editor, Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1984, Volume 19: Journal and Diaries II (1738-1743), p. 159). While I disagree with Wesley, his motivation was not the same as modern ecumenicists. He viewed these as unbelievers in need of being born again. Many ecumenists, on the other hand, believe all religions are valid expressions on the way to God – therefore receiving with open arms and free communion those who reject Jesus as the only way whereby we must be saved.

A parting hymn we sing

1. A parting hymn we sing (A hymn of joy we sing)
Around Thy table, Lord,
Again our grateful tribute bring,
Our solemn vows record.

2. Here have we seen Thy face,
And felt Thy presence here;
So may the savor of Thy grace,
In word and life appear.

3. The purchase of Thy blood,
By sin no longer led,
The path our dear Redeemer trod
May we rejoicing tread.

4. In self forgetting love
Be our communion shown,
Until we join the church above,
And know as we are known.

Aaron Robarts Wolfe, 1858

Restricting the Lord’s supper

About 10 years ago I wrote about Participants in the Lord’s Supper and pointed out that the views related to participants can be broadly divided into two basic types of communion, restricted and unrestricted. I still think this is a good broad categorization. Nevertheless, when we start trying to define variations of those broad categories, things can get difficult. Different people with different backgrounds who use different definitions of terms come together to discuss it, and there can be much confusion.

Perhaps we would be better off discarding terms such as closed communion, close communion, open communion – not altogether, because they are in use and not going away anytime soon. But when discussing who should participate, the important question we are asking is not, “Do you believe in closed communion, close communion or open communion,” or “Does the Bible teach closed communion, close communion or open communion?” Better rather, the question is, “What restriction does the Bible place on participation in the Lord’s supper?[i]

I wonder if the following scenario might be helpful illustrating this.

• The entry door to the communion table is closed.
• Those who approach give the doorkeeper their password.
• If they give the right password they can come in.

Now “the password” is where the differences come in.

• In some churches “the password” is “I’m a believer.”
• In some churches “the password” is “I’m a baptized believer.”
• In some churches “the password” is “I’m a baptized believer who is a member of a Bible-believing church.”
• In some churches “the password” is “I’m a member of this church.”

There are other views that fit in between some of these. This might help people see that all these variations put some kind of restriction on participation in the Lord’s supper – even though some think they do not.

---

[i] Any Bible-believing church believes there are some restrictions. There may be possibly full-fledged ecumenists and universalists who argue there are absolutely no restrictions.

Lord's Supper guarded least in the church

Intriguing thought on the Lord's Supper guarded least in the church by Matt Wade:

I was thinking today (yes, believe it or not) and it occurred to me that most churches that hold to close or open communion place more restrictions on who can sing in their church than on who can partake in the Lord's Supper. It seems odd to me that churches will not allow members of their own church to sing (because they require auditions, etc.) yet these churches will allow any person walking in off the street to partake in the Lord's Supper.

Should our microphones be more closely guarded than the Lord's Supper?

Two links of interest

Not that I altogether agree with these, interesting nevertheless. 

• Ancient letters reveal Bible bombshell --"In other words, these texts show parts of the Old Testament — including the Books of Isaiah, Amos, and Hosea, and parts of Genesis and Deuteronomy—could have been written earlier than previously thought. 

Not at all surprising to some of us, and clearly not all scholarship has held to Bible to be at late as these folks assume. They are confounded by presuppositional evolutionary thinking. 

• The Last Supper of Jesus Didn't Happen at a Table --"Instead of a large rectangular table, the Last Supper was almost certainly eaten while reclining on cushions placed on the floor with the food on a low table."

Mattingly on the Meal of the Lord

"Christ initiated the Lord's Supper, presided over it, and commanded it to be kept as a memorial to His sufferings for His people. Therefore, we should never come to the Lord's Table in a lighthearted manner giving little attention to why we are eating the bread and drinking from the cup...The apostle advised the saints: "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's  body" (I Corinthians 11.27-29)...Some  people  have interpreted Paul's words to mean that anyone who feels himself unfit to take of this sacred meal ought not to do so, but in context it simply means one must examine the manner in which he takes the bread and wine.  A person who feels his unworthiness is a person who has a fit mind to come to the Lord's Table. It is vital that he not think so lightly of Christ that he neglects to keep this ordinance." -- David K. Mattingly

Till He come

1. Till He come O let the words
Linger on the trembling chords,
Let the little while between
In their golden light be seen;
Let us think how Heaven and home
Lie beyond that, Till He come.

2. When the weary ones we love
Enter on their rest above,
Seems the earth so poor and vast,
All our life joy overcast?
Hush, be every murmur dumb;
It is only, Till He come.

3. Clouds and conflicts round us press;
Would we have one sorrow less?
All the sharpness of the cross,
All that tells the world is lost,
Death and darkness, and the tomb,
Only whisper, Till He come.

4. See, the feast of love is spread,
Drink the wine, and break the bread;
Sweet memorials, till the Lord
Calls us round His heavenly board;
Some from earth, from glory some
Severed only, Till He come.

Edward Henry Bickersteth, 1861

Relationship of baptism and the Lord's supper

In his blog post Some Thoughts on Open and Closed Communion, John Bellingham makes three interesting points about the relationship of baptism and the Lord's supper.

"1) Water Baptism precedes the Lord's Supper in the apostolic pattern...the order of events in Acts 2 does seem to lend considerable support to the practice of closed communion, viz.  Repentance (v. 38) --> Water Baptism (v. 38) --> Church Membership (v. 41) -->Lord's Supper (v. 42)."

"2) Water Baptism precedes the Lord's Supper in the order of their institution...Jesus instituted Water Baptism at the beginning of His earthly ministry and the Lord's Supper on the same night that He was betrayed."

"3) Water Baptism precedes the Lord's Supper in their doctrinal order...just as a baby must be born before she can eat and be nourished, so the ordinance symbolizing new spiritual life doctrinally precedes the ordinance symbolizing ongoing nourishment and sustenance.  To reverse this order is to confuse the doctrinal significance of these two ordinances."

Read the entire piece at the link above.

12 Links on communion

The posting of links does not constitute an endorsement of the sites linked, and not necessarily even agreement with the specific posts linked.

* A short defense of close communion
* Closed Communion: Scriptural Reasons Why a New Testament Church Should Commune Only with Its Own Members at the Lord's Table

* Communion: Open? Close? Closed?

* Discerning the Body: A Biblical Defense of Modified Open Communion
* Open and Closed Membership among English and Welsh Baptists

* Open Communion: WARNING!
* Paul’s rebuke of Peter as argument for open communion
* Some Thoughts on Open and Closed Communion
* Table Manners: On the Welcoming Catholicity of Closed Communion
* The Case for Close Communion
* Why Can't My Family Observe the Lord's Supper?
* Why We Practice “Open” Communion

Communion, restricted or unrestricted...

How many kinds are there? I suggest 8 possibilities below (mostly related to Baptist churches), but there may be others. I suggest that almost all communion in Christian-denominated churches is restricted -- the disagreement is on how much to restrict it.

1. Unrestricted; anyone who wishes to participate may do so, regardless of their religious, secular or philosophical beliefs.
2. Restricted to those who consider themselves Christians.
3. Restricted to those whom the church considers Christians.
4. Restricted to those who have been baptized.
5. Restricted to those who have been baptized upon profession of faith.
6. Restricted to those who have been baptized upon profession of faith by a Baptist church/minister/etc.
7. Restricted to those who have been baptized upon profession of faith by a Baptist church and are members in good standing of a church of like faith and order.
8. Restricted to those who are members in good standing of the local church observing the ordinance.

Review of Communion: Is It Open or Closed

Communion: Is It Open or Closed, Bobby L. Sparks, Greenville, TX: Tabernacle Ministries, 2006. 9780976127048/0976127040, 48 pp. $3.95 Overview: “Reviews the Biblical issue of whether communion is open to all believers or restricted to the members of the observing church.”

While browsing the Baptist Book Store in Texarkana for printed nuggets, I ran across Communion: Is It Open or Closed by Bobby Sparks. Brother Sparks is pastor of Emmanuel Missionary Baptist Church in Greenville, Texas. His lectures on the Tabernacle have been very well received, and he is also one of few modern-day Baptist debaters. Larry Ray Hafley, reporting on the “Sparks-Campbell” debate in Mississippi wrote, “Sparks is as good a debater as the Baptists have.” Because of these reasons I was excited to get the book, which had flown under my radar to this point. I grasped it up Friday and started reading it Saturday.

Sparks divides his treatise into an introduction and 7 chapters. After his introduction he defines his terms and comes quickly to espouse and defend closed communion. The first five chapters contrast open and closed communion, giving scriptural arguments for the latter and scriptural & logical objections to the former. The last two chapters finish up with a brief discussion of the similar but competing doctrine of “close communion” and proof that closed communion is the historical position of Baptists. There is a bibliography, but it is incomplete. There is no index.

On an unnumbered recto page, Sparks overplays one of the best arguments against open communion -- 1 Corinthians 5:11 -- by its unqualified use to answer the question, “Is there a passage of Scripture that clearly states in unmistakable terms that a church is not to serve communion to all people who profess to be saved?” The answer is a resounding “Yes!” I agree. But to me this starts the booklet out on the wrong foot. Perhaps for some this will be a tantalizer to draw them into the book to see why. I am afraid that for others it could be a turn-off that causes them to close the pages and set the book aside. Why? Because that verse void of its context doesn’t “clearly state the proposition in unmistakable terms”. Studied and understood, it does. Maybe that is just me, though, that will see this is a negative. If anyone is interested enough in the topic to buy this book, surely they will be interested enough to go ahead and read it.

Sparks’s view finds a powerful ally in our Lord’s institution of His Supper -- it was not thrown open to all but rather restricted to a select few. The author rightly observes, “Not one argument that open communionists urge can be based upon the institution of the Supper by Jesus (p. 8).” He returns to mention this text on numerous occasions. Unfortunately, he never addresses any concerns as to why this observance was restricted even narrower than local-church only and what implications that might have for the local-church only view.

The author provides a direct and clear answer to the oft-raised objection, “It is the Lord’s Table.” Sparks answers, “Yes, it is the Lord’s Table. To our own tables we may invite whom we will, but servants may not give out invitations to their Master’s Table (p. 34).” He further notes that “No congregation has any authority to make the door of admission into their communion any straighter (sic) or wider than Christ Himself made it.” Of course, this argument cuts both ways, and sends us back to the Bible to see how wide or narrow Christ made the door of admission. Other complaints are addressed as well, such “do not judge,” “let a man examine himself,” and the idea that closed communion is intolerant.

The author lays out a good case to show that communion is restricted. An injunction to put an immoral man from among you, not keep company with him, to not eat with him -- even if it includes social eating -- must necessarily exclude such an one from the Lord’s Table. The heresies and divisions in 1 Corinthians 11 also provide a substantial reason for restricted communion. The connection between communion and church discipline -- and that open communion effectively nullifies church discipline -- is an important reason that communion should be restricted. Nevertheless, I don’t believe Sparks always “connects the dots” as to why to extend the restrictions to local-church only and leaves us to assume the proof is met. But why is church discipline nullified, for example, if a church only admits to communion members of other churches of like faith and order holding forth the same doctrines, and faithfully exercising church discipline on heresy and immorality? An answer to these types of concerns might well be answered in his Chapter 5, “Objections Answered.” All objections to local-church only communion do not come from those who indiscriminately throw the doors wide open!

On the other hand some of the author’s objections diminish in their power, if you are familiar with some of the churches that practice closed communion. For example, in objecting to close communion -- which within two pages Sparks curiously and contradictorily says is both “some better than” and “as bad as” open communion -- the author states “Churches that allow members of churches of their denomination to sit at the table of communion also sanction immoral living and heretical teaching.” Let me tell you straight: churches that practice local-church only communion who don’t practice church discipline (and there are those that don’t) “also sanction immoral living and heretical teaching.” This is ultimately not proof of either position, but proof that church discipline needs to be re-understood and re-established.

The last chapter, “The Historical Position of the Baptists,” might provide a good finish to this work, except for the fact that the majority historical position of the Baptists is not the one for which the author argues. It is interesting, but not necessary, to establish the majority position of Baptists historically. The task is to prove the practice scripturally. Since history is not in consistent agreement with Sparks’ proposition, this chapter detracts from rather than adds to the booklet.

The purpose of the seventh chapter is “to show that closed communion has been the historical position of the Baptists (p. 41).” I don’t doubt the author believes that to be the case, but the abundance of Baptist historical records does not prove it to be so. Even the select group of quotes that Sparks includes does not prove this to be the case. I will highlight only two: [1] “For many years the official position of the Southern Baptist Convention was that communion was restricted to the local church (p. 44).” Many Southern Baptists practiced local-church communion. Others did not. As far as an official position, one must consider the convention-wide statement of faith adopted in 1925, which reads, “It [baptism] is prerequisite to the privileges of a church relation and to the Lord’s Supper, in which the members of the church, by the use of bread and wine, commemorate the dying love of Christ.” While one might interpret this to mean local-church only communion, it does not specifically say so. It leaves enough ambiguity for differences. Nor do any of the Southern Baptist quotes given on pages 44-47 explicitly limit communion only to members of the local church observing the ordinance. Some of the writers quoted may have believed that, but their quotes don’t necessarily say that. Saying that church membership is a prerequisite to communion is not the same as saying that membership in the church observing the ordinance is prerequisite to communion. [2] “It has been the official position of the American Baptist Association from its inception that the Lord’s Supper was restricted to only the members of each local church (p. 47).” Again, the author fails to give the evidence to prove his proposition, whether it be so or not. Rather than quoting documents “from its inception” Sparks quotes a more recent iteration of the ABA Doctrinal Statement that explicitly states what he believes. In contrast, the New Hampshire Confession of Faith (1833) and a 12 item addendum that was adopted by the ABA in 1924 do not clearly limit participation in the Lord’s Supper to local church members only.

I have judged Brother Sparks book rather harshly. Perhaps to some extent because I feel he is capable of much better. In the historical chapter, I just don’t understand what he was doing. For example, there were Southern Baptists who could have been quoted embracing strict local-church only communion in clearer terms, yet he does not use such direct quotes. I still recommend this book. It has some good material and high points that are beneficial to the understanding of restricted communion, and some arguments that are not spelled out as well by others. I hope some editorial attention will be attached to typographical and formatting errors (e.g. the words “Chapter Five” appear at the bottom of page 31 instead of as the heading on p. 32) before it is reprinted. It may be purchased from Bogard Press, Tabernacle Ministries or Christian Bookstore.net.

My conclusion is that this book may well fortify the faithful who already believe in closed communion, but may have too many loose ends to convince the cynical who do not accept it.

* J. W. Griffith, historian, pastor and mentor, told me that of the old preachers in the Mt. Zion Association (a local association of churches affiliated with the ABA), there was only one who advocated strict local-church only communion. By the old preachers, he meant the generation of preachers before his preacher father’s generation -- men who were born roughly from the late 1850s to the 1870s, and who passed off the scene from the 1920s to the 1940s.

Open Communion - Open Membership

DOES OPEN COMMUNION LEAD TO OPEN MEMBERSHIP?

First, I should define my use of the terms. By open communion I mean opening the communion service (the Lord's supper, the bread and wine) to anyone who professes to be a Christian by faith in Christ, regardless of his or her status concerning baptism or church membership. As far as I have observed, there is no truly "open" or "unrestricted" communion; all churches restrict it in some way. It's just a matter of how much it is restricted. By open membership in Baptist churches, I mean opening the church's membership to persons who have not been baptized by immersion. This varies in actual practice, and, I think, may be demonstrated sometimes as even receiving some who have only infant baptism. Apparently Baptist Union of Great Britain churches practice that, as well as some members of American Baptist Churches in the USA. But I believe most would only apply this in the case of one who received sprinkling or pouring after affirming faith in Christ.

Second, it is my proposition that open communion leads to open membership. I do not propose that every case of open communion leads to open membership, but that the practice of open communion over a period of time will generally lead to open membership. I will post below some evidence of the relationship between the two. If others have such evidence, I encourage you to post it in the comment thread. Those who have some evidence to the contrary should post that as well.

THE CASE IN THE NORTH CAROLINA BAPTIST STATE CONVENTION
The North Carolina Baptist State Convention had a controversy that was caused by some churches receiving as members those who had not been baptized by immersion as believers, and the reaction of other churches to this. In 1972 the Convention established a committee to report on the problem. The committee asked the "differing" churches to identify themselves. Although over 20 churches were thought to be involved, in 1973 only twelve churches voluntarily identified themselves and eleven of them presented their case to the committee. It can be seen in the churches' defenses of their practices that they definitely had made the connection between open communion and open membership. This is documented in Perspectives in Religious Studies 1977 - Documents Concerning Baptism and Church Membership: A Controversy among North Carolina Baptists (c. 1977 by Association of Baptist Professors of Religion). The cover also carries the heading, Special Studies Series No. 1. It should be noted that all the churches did not have exactly the same practice, and that they did not necessarily acquire it from one another. The general nature of the policies was that "we...accept into membership baptized believers from other Christian groups, whatever the form of their baptism...(p. 8)." And from pages 38 and 39: "Another determining factor for some of these churches moving to their present position was that they considered a discrepancy in the custom of Baptist congregations practicing 'open communion' but 'closed membership'.

What to us was the inconsistency of recognizing the Christian standing of so many while not opening to them the doors of membership was further impressed upon us as we considered our practice concerning the Lord's Supper. For many years we had given explicit recognition to the membership of other Christians in Christ's Body by sharing the Lord's Table with them in worship. If to invite them to the Table was to affirm our belonging to each other in Christ, how could we continue to refuse them membership if and when they sought it?...If we believed, as we did, that the Lord would receive them at His Table, how could we not receive them into our fellowship especially since that fellowship was ours only because we recognized that we were his.

We extend to a Christian from another Christian body the right hand of fellowship as a brother in Christ and welcome him as we welcome any Christian to the Lord's Table.

There is another way we may possibly differ from our fellow Baptist churches. We believe that no one is qualified to participate in the Lord's Supper who has not been baptized. One must be "in Christ" before he may receive Christ into himself as a member of a body of faith. Many Baptist churches across this state, however, practice "open communion" and "closed baptism." This means, in effect, that such churches offer the Lord's Supper to people whom they do not recognize as having been baptized. That may be a not-insignificant heresy. In any event, we know of no church of any denomination, which follows this practice, other than some Baptist churches. It is a practice which we are unable to embrace.

There are only two ordinances of the Christian church - communion and baptism. Some years ago we realized that closed communion was a dividing rather than a unifying element among Christians. And so we took steps to invite all Christians to take holy communion with us. Our present policy regarding baptism tends also to divide rather than unify and the acceptance of this proposed change would tend to encourage unification.

On the day of her organization by the Mecklenburg Baptist Association the proposed Statement of Faith was amended to provide for "Open Communion," the inclusion of all Christians in the observance of the exceedingly profound Ordinance of the Lord's Supper. Across the years we struggled with conscience in the contradictory demand that practicing Christians desiring to transfer from another Christian Church be required to submit to a re-baptism by immersion in order to share our fellowship.

It is interesting especially in the third church quotation that they held that baptism was a prerequisite to communion and thought this was the general belief of all churches except some Baptists. Of course, the discrepancy was resolved in their case by recognizing non-immersions as baptism.

THE BAPTIST UNION OF GREAT BRITAIN
The following is copied and pasted from the Baptist Union website. It would indicate that some BU churches will accept persons without further baptism beyond infant baptism. What if I were baptised as a child? Many people who turn to Christ have already been baptised as a small child. If this applies to you, be baptised again as a believer. Baptists believe that baptism without faith is not the baptism of the Bible. What if I have been confirmed? If at your confirmation service you meaningfully confirmed the promise made on your behalf by your godparents, then some Baptist churches will welcome you on your profession of faith. 

The bold emphasis is mine to show the point I want all to notice. I have not found specific quotes to show the BU churches' connection of thought between open communion and open membership. The quote above is just to substantiate the claim I made about the Baptist Union in the first post. It appears that at the point in time the BU is consistent in its view of open communion and open membership.

AUSTRALIAN BAPTISTS 
Excerpts from the following article by Rowland Croucher discuss Open Membership in Australian Baptist Churches. I have given his categories of membership, as well as his "further reading," in which one may find interesting material on the subject. Croucher sees the open/closed communion/membership questions as being related.

(Paper presented to the School of Ministry, Whitley College Melbourne, July, 1992. A 2010 update may be found HERE.)

...The relationship of a person's faith-to-baptism-to-church membership is one of the most complex issues in contemporary Baptist faith and practice. Most Australian Baptists have resolved the closed/open communion issue (in favour of open communion), but only a minority of our churches have moved to an open membership position...The key question: 'Why is it possible to be accepted into the family of God but not into the family of a Baptist church?' Baptists have given many answers, which can roughly be summarized into six broad categories:  [1] HARD CLOSED: Here members are only those baptized by someone with authority in one's own Baptist denomination. Many U.S. Southern Baptists, for example, will re-baptize other Baptists.  [2] SOFT CLOSED: These churches will not re-baptize someone already immersed as a believer, unless the baptism took place in a sectarian group.  [3] MODIFIED CLOSED: This - with the 'soft closed' position - is the stance of most Australian Baptist churches. Here a believer who is unbaptized, or was baptized as an infant, is given 'associate' status, and may vote on secondary matters in church meetings, and generally will not be eligible for the office of deacon or elder.  [4] MODIFIED OPEN: In these churches only those who are baptized can be members, provided the individual regards their baptism - of whatever kind - as valid for them. This is the position of about 70-80 of our Australian churches.  [5] PLURALIST OPEN: These churches (eg. in parts of the UK and in North India) go one step further and allow options for either infant or adult baptism, choosing sprinkling, effusion or immersion.  [6] WIDER OPEN: This position allows the individual, in consultation and prayer within the community of faith, to reach a conclusion about baptism that is valid for them, but may be a full member of the church during this process.  Further reading: T. Bergsten, 'Baptism and the Church', The Baptist Quarterly, Vol 18 nos. 3 & 4 (1959), pp. 125-131, 159-171.  D. Bridge and D. Phypers, The Water that Divides, IVP, 1977.  A. Gilmore, Baptism and Christian Unity, Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1966, pp. 58-74.  Thorwald Lorenzen, 'Baptism and Church Membership: Some Baptist Positions and their Ecumenical Implications', J. Ecumenical Studies, 18:4, Fall 1981, pp. 561 ff.

AMERICAN BAPTIST CHURCHES IN THE USA
The following represents the membership views of one Arkansas church in the ABCUSA:

 Membership Information Membership at Judson is open to baptized believers of all Christian denominations. Our baptism should unite, not divide us. When we baptize, we practice immersion. We welcome as Associate Members those who wish to continue membership in their home church. Our members come from many denominations and our communion table is open to all believers. A welcoming class is held for all who desire membership in Judson American Baptist Church.

The church web site may be viewed here. [This baptism information was copied in January 2002, but is no longer available.]

This is from an ABCUSA church in Colorado:

Calvary has open membership. In other words, if you have been baptized (regardless of the form) you are received openly as a member of this congregation based on your Christian experience. If you have been baptized as an infant and would find it meaningful to be immersed as an adult, you are encouraged to do so. Please talk to one of the ministers. Pastor’s classes are available for all ages.

Their web site is here. [This was copied in January 2002, but is no longer available.]